Chapter 3

Symbolic Interactionism and Related Perspectives

is
PHOTO 3.1 How people perceive the effects of marijuana rooted in social interaction and feedback from others. Source: Fuse/Getty

Images

In his classic study of marijuana users, Becker (1963) argues that the experience of being high is socially
constructed. following exchange between Becker and one of his study participants
The illustrates the role of
others in shaping users' perceptions. The participant is a jazz musician recounting his early experiences with
marijuana.

RESEARCHER: Did you get high the first time you turned on?

I I
PARTICIPANT: Yeah, sure. Although, come to think of it, I guess really didn't. mean, like the first time it was more or less of a mild
I I I I I I It
drunk. was happy, guess, you know what mean. But didn't really know was high, you know what mean. was only after the second

time I got high that I realized I was high the first time. Then I knew something different was happening.

RESEARCHER: How did you know that?

did I know? If what happened that night would of happened would've known, believe
PARTICIPANT: How to me to you, you me. We
played the first tune for almost two hours-one tune! Imagine, man! We got on the stand and played this one tune, we started at nine o'clock.
I I
When we got finished, looked watch, it's to eleven. Almost two hours on one tune. And it didn't like anything.
a
at quarter seem mean,
my I I
you know, it does that to you. It's like you have much more time or something. Anyway, when saw that, man, it was too much. I knew

must really be high or something if anything like that could happen. See, and then they explained to me that that's what it did to you, you

I I probably
I

had a different sense of time and everything. So realized that that's what it was. knew then. Like the first time, felt that
way,
but
I
didn't what happening
you know, know was

(Becker 1963:51)

According to Becker (1963), people learn how to define the physiological effects of marijuana as pleasurable
through face-to-face interaction with more experienced users. Seasoned users teach novices how to moderate
their intake of the substance to avoid extreme, and thus potentially uncomfortable, symptoms. Experienced

users also reinforce the view that the effects of the drug are enjoyable.
Becker's work emphasizes the role of the social context and others' reactions in providing the framework
within which physiological cues are evaluated. His work is an excellent example of a symbolic interactionist
study. Like some of the symbolic interactionists whose research we discussed in previous chapters, Becker used
in-depth interviews to collect his data. His snowball sample consisted of 50 individuals. Some participants were
musicians, whereas others held more conventional blue-collar (manual labor) or professional jobs. Becker's

104

104
theory about the social nature of marijuana's effects was based on the results of a systematic analysis of his
subjects' experiences.

In Chapter 9 we will discuss the symbolic interactionist literature on drug use and other forms of deviance
(violations of social norms), as well as recent changes in the legal status of marijuana and the population's

views on this issue. The purpose of this chapter is to familiarize you with symbolic interactionism and the

various strains of thought within or related to this theoretical tradition. Symbolic interactionist analyses
discussed in earlier chapters include Besen's (2006) study of teens working at coffee shops, Kurien's (2005)
article on identity construction among Indian American college students, and Hurst's (2007) analysis of class
identity among college undergraduates from working-class backgrounds.

105

105
Theoretical Frameworks

Symbolic interactionism is a theoretical framework that emphasizes symbolic communication and the social
construction of meanings through face-to-face interaction. Theoretical frameworks (also called theoretical
perspectives) within sociology, and within sociological
psychology more specifically, provide researchers
social

with sets of concepts and specify how these concepts are related. It is within theoretical frameworks that more
specific social psychological theories explaining social phenomena are developed. For example, working within
the symbolic interactionist framework, Becker (1963) developed his theory about how people learn to
experience marijuana intoxication as pleasurable.
In Chapters 1 and 2, we introduced the concept of face, or type, of social psychology. A theoretical
framework is a bit more specific than a face, which is a research tradition or orientation. In fact, within a given
face of social psychology, such as the symbolic interactionist tradition, there are usually coexisting theoretical

frameworks. These theoretical frameworks are related in that they share common assumptions and
methodologies.

Group

Psychology Social Sociology

Psychology

Symbolic
nteractionism (S)

I Psychological Social
Psychology (PSP)
Social Structure&
Personality (S6P)
S
o
n Group Processes
&

Structures (GPS)

Symbolic Interactionism (SI)

Symbolic Interactionism
Chicago School
lowa/Indiana School
Group Identity Theory
Dramaturgical Model
Ethnomethodology

FIGURE 3.1 The Symbolic Interactionist Face of Sociological Social Psychology (SI)

Symbolic interactionism, which itself contains two schools of thought is the most prominent theoretical

framework within the symbolic interactionist face of social psychology. In addition, there are two other related
theoretical frameworks within this face of sociological social psychology: (1) the dramaturgical approach, and

(2) ethnomethodology (Petras and Meltzer 1973). Eigure 3.1 shows the different theoretical frameworks within
the symbolic interactionist face of sociological social psychology. We discuss each of the theoretical

frameworks in detail in subsequent sections of the chapter.

106

106
Symbolic Interactionism (SI)

George Herbert Mead, a philosopher at the University of Chicago during the early part of the twentieth
century, is regarded as the most significant contributor to the symbolic interactionist tradition. Mind, Self, and
Society (1934) is the primary treatise on symbolic interactionism based on Mead's social philosophy. This book

was compiled from lecture notes from Mead's social psychology course, which were put into book form by his
students following his death in 1931 (Ritzer and Goodman 200
4)

Communication as an Exchange
of Significant Symbols
In Mind, Self, and Society, Mead argues that people communicate through the exchange of significant symbols
A symbol is something that represents something else. A significant symbol is a gesture tha brings out the

same
t
meaning in oneself as it does in another. Thus, a significant symbol has the same meaning to the person

initiating it as it does to the individual toward whom it is directed. Within this culture, for example, a raised
hand usually means that a student has a question. In most classroom
in class contexts, the raised hand becomes

a significant symbol because there is a shared understanding that the initiator of the gesture is requesting
permission to ask a question or make a comment. Because humans communicate through the exchange of
significant symbols, including language, most of our interactions have an underlying symbolic component.
According to Mead (1934), symbolic communication occurs both within and between individuals. People

converse with themselves in the form of complex thought. The capacity to have a conversation with oneself
(mind) emerges as children develop what Mead called the "self." We will discuss the processes through which
the self develops in detail in Chapter 6. Here we focus on the nature of the self and its implications for our
understanding of human social behavior. See Box 3.1 for a discussion of how humans compare to other animals
in communication and cognition

Box 3.1 Animal Communication and Cognition

The degree to which animals communicate and have higher-level cognitive abilities has been debated

extensively. According to Mead (1934), it is our ability to communicate using language that underlies our
ability to think and sets us apart from other animal species.
Some contemporary symbolic interactionists have challenged this assumption. Drawing on the results

of research conducted with animals over the last 30 years, they argue that communication can occur
without spoken language and that animals, and animals and humans, routinely communicate with one

another. Furthermore, they argue that animals have subjective experiences (i.e., they are mentally aware
of what they are
doing or feeling) and the capacity for thought (Alger and Alger 2003; Irvine 2004:
Sanders and Arluke 1993).

In her biography of the chimpanzee Nim Chimpsky, journalist Elizabeth Hess (2008) chronicles the life
of one of the most controversial research subjects in the history of primatology. Nim was a central

character in the debate about the differences between humans and animals. Raised from infancy in a
human family, Nim was taught American Sign Language (ASL) in an attempt to show that the ability to
learn language is not unique to humans. Naming the chimp Nim Chimpsky was a poke at the famous

American linguist Noam Chomsky and his notion that humans are the only species genetically
programmed for language acquisition.
After years of data collection, the researcher in charge of the project (primatologist Herbert Terrace)
concluded that he and his team had not succeeded in teaching Nim how to communicate using language
(Terrace 1980). Many of Nim's handlers,
interviewed by Hess, tell a different story. They are adamant that
Nim could talk and think. After misbehaving, Nim would often sign, "Sorry." Having picked up some of
the habits of his caretakers, he was known to ask for a cigarette or some marijuana (Hess 2008
)

107

107
 Although he could use signs Nim never learned the rules of language (grammar) or
to make requests,
how to combine words into meaningful phrases. Consistent with Chomsky's assertion, the ability to

communicate using spoken language appears to be specific to humans (Rivas 2005).

This does not, however, mean that animals cannot communicate with one another, or with humans, or
that they have no mental life (Savage-Rumbaugh, Shanker, and Taylor 1998). Although humans and

animals have different abilities (or different degrees of ability) when it comes to communication and
cognition, many sociological social psychologists feel that Mead's view of the experiences of animals was
too rigid.

Mead's Self

Using terminology introduced by the Harvard psychologist William James (1890), Mead (1934) describes the

self as the process of interaction between two phases: the "I" and the "me."2 According to Mead, the "I" is the
subject phase of the self, our spontaneous reactions to people, situations, and events. The "" remains largely
unconditioned, or untrained, and is never fully within our control. It is, however, frequently constrained or
redirected by the "me." The "me" is the object phase of the self, which allows for self-reflection and evaluation

through the process of role taking.

NIM

Source: Susan Kuklin/Science Source

PHOTO 3.2 Woman using signs to communicate with Nim Chimpsky.

Taking the role of another, called role taking or perspective taking, involves viewing oneself as an object
from the perspective of another individual, a group, or society at large (the generalized other). It is through role

taking that people are able to gain a sense of others' expectations and coordinate their behaviors. Thus, it is our
capacity for role taking that makes social interaction possible and allows for the creation and maintenance of
society. If people couldn't view themselves through the eyes of others, they would not be able to construct
shared meanings or to align their conduct with that of other individuals. Behavior would be haphazard, and

people would have little regard for the consequences of their actions (Schwalbe 1991a, 1991b)
Within a given social context, social behavior is the product of an interaction between the "I" and the "me."
We react with the "" and immediately gauge the appropriateness of our response by viewing ourselves
through the eyes of others (the process of role taking). Insofar as the spontaneous "T" fails to conform to

prevailing normative expectations, the "me" redirects or reshapes the "I," bringing it into line with these
broader social standards

108

108
 "me"

role-
taking
(social
expectations)

"I"

spontaneous Behavior
reactions

FIGURE 3.2 The Self and Social Behavior

Although we may seek to channel our "I" responses in particular ways in many situations, it is important to

keep in mind that the "I" is what allows for creativity and spontaneity in human behavior. It is what prevents

us from acting like overly programmed robots. Our capacity to respond in unique and unfetteredways in any
social setting is, for Mead, an important part of the human experience. Due to the "I," behavior is never
predetermin
ed We do, however, regulate our behavior much of the time. The extent to which the "me" constrains, or
modifies, the "I" depends upon the social context within which behavior occurs. Mead (1934) used the creation
of art as an example of a situation where the "me" steps back and the "I" is given greater latitude. Can you
think of any other settings where the "I" is likely to exert a strong influence on your behavior? Any social
context that is low in normative regulation is conducive to this type of response. When a setting is low in
normative regulation, the governing behavior are loose, and you can relax and act without much
rules

reflection about how your behaviors will be perceived by others.

In structured situations with high levels of normative regulation (e.g., a job interview, a court appearance,
and a college classroom), the "me" plays a larger role in shaping individual's behaviors. Still there is always
an
a component to our action (the "I") that we cannot fully control, even when we would like to do
spontaneous

so. We can modify our immediate reactions so that they are socially appropriate, but there is often that split
second when the "I" seeps through

Think about popular television programs involving competitions, shows like The Voice, Project Runway,
the

and Top Chef. Viewers are ultimately presented with two final contestants, but they do not yet know who has

won. The announcer then gives the name of the runner-up, the person in second place. Watch that individual's
face the next time
you catch a scene like this. For just a moment, you can see the disappointment (the
autonomic, uncontrollable "I" response). Then, within a split second, the "me" kicks in, and the runner-up
smiles broadly and excitedly congratulates the winner-the "appropriate" behavior

109

109
 is
PHOTO 3.3 The runner-up in this competition not demonstrating good sportsmanship. Acting gracious when you have lost a

is
competition a learned behavior. Source: Jupiterimages/Workbook Stock/Getty Images.

What Do You Think?

When was the last time you saw someone's "I slip through (in a face-to-face encounter) fo that
split second person before
was the able to consciously regulate his or her r
facial expressions,
gestures, behavior? Where did this occur?
and other

When and where was the last time this happened to you? How did it make you feel?

Symbolic
Key Premises of Interactionism

It was Herbert Blumer, a student of Mead's, who named Mead's perspective "symbolic interactionism" (Blumer
1969).Blumer was also instrumental in codifying the central tenets of this theoretical framework. According to
Blumer (1969), the three premises of the symbolic interactionist perspective are as follows:

1. People act toward objects, events, and others based on their meanings.
2. Meanings emerge through the course of social interaction. Meanings are created as actors respond to
things (objects, events, and other actors and their behaviors) in their environment. Thus, meanings
rooted in behavior
are
3. Meanings are subject to modification through self-communication (mind) as individuals interpret and
respond to the things they encounter. Within a given social context, meanings change as people's
behavior changes.

Henslin (2007) makes explicit the way these premises apply to real-world interactions in his analysis of the
experiences of the survivors of a plane crash in the Andes Mountains. The plane, carrying members of a rugby
team from Uruguay and some of their family members and friends, crashed en route to Santiago, Chile, in
October of 1972. This story may sound familiar. The events that occurred following the crash were portrayed in
Alive (1993), a popular film starring Ethan Hawke and Vincent Spano.
After more than two months in a desolate area with subzero temperatures, the 16 remaining crash survivors

were in a dire situation, with little hope of being rescued. They were starving. They needed nourishment or
they would die. Without adequate supplies, their only option was the flesh of the individuals who had perished

10
110
in the crash

1:
Premise Meanings shape behavior.
it
At first, the idea of human flesh to the survivors, probably and they in this
eating was repugnant as seems to you,
were unwilling to engage
behavior. The human body was regarded as sacred, a view consistent with values acquired in childhood. Given the meaning accorded to
the human body, crash survivors were unable to bring themselves to eat the flesh of dead companions and crew members.

in behavior
2:
through social rooted
Premise Meanings emerge interaction and are
As time passed, the survivors came to realize that they had no choice but to consume the bodies of individuals who perished in the crash or
they too would die. As a group, they decided they had to start eating the corpses. Within this context, the crash survivors negotiated a
order, that would enable them human bodies while still self-views. Through face-to-face
new normative one to eat maintaining positive
interaction, they developed a set of rules about who could eat what, when they could eat, and how much they could eat. First, they would
eat those individuals they did not know personally (members of the flight crew) before any family members or friends. There were certain
body that (e.g., genitals and heads). Fat could be consumed whereas muscle rationed
were off limits
parts at any time, tissue was
Individuals who
would be venturing out to seek help allowed to eat the largest portions of the protein-rich muscle meat
were
3:
Premise Meanings change as behaviors change
the meaning of the dead bodies had changed.
Clearly, They were no longer something sacred, to be revered and treated in the conventional

buried). They were food, and this reflected the members' subsequent behaviors. The crash
manner (ie., new meaning was in group
survivors became accustomed to the new system, so much so that individuals even brought "snacks" (e.g., a human hand) with them to
bed in the evening (Henslin 2007).

How could this happen, you might ask. How could a group of people so radically change their perceptions of
what is morally right and wrong? And how could they change their definition of the human body from
something sacred to something edible?
The answer is that the transition was gradual, and the new norms
emerged over a number of days as the group responded to their dire situation. When they were finally rescued,
the survivors (all Roman Catholics) were given absolution by the Church. Church officials deemed their
behavior appropriate because they had a moral obligation to survive (Henslin 2007
)
It is often relatively easy to identify social patterns and processes in situations that require substantial

adjustment on the part of the individuals present, as in the 1972 Andes flight disaster. As noted by Henslin
(2007), studying social interaction in such an extreme condition makes clear the processes of negotiation that

occur in everyday social life but go largely unnoticed because of their more subtle and routine nature.

What Do You Think?

How would you have acted if you were one of the survivors of the plane crash just described?

Would you have eaten human flesh in order to survive?

Think of a situation in which your behavior, or the behavior of someone you know, surprised
you because it was out of the ordinary. What happened?

Th Socia Constructi of Realit in Everyda Situation

e l on y y s
From a symbolic interactionist perspective, our interactions with others involve the continual construction and
negotiation of reality-how we interpret situations and how we view ourselves and others. We participate in
these processes every day, although we rarely think about them or record them. Think about your current
classes, for example. It is likely that each one has a slightly different tone, which reflects both prior and current
interactions between the students and the professor. In some classes, students speak more freely and less

formally than in others. Within some general parameters, the structure of a given college class is negotiated by

the individuals present in the encounter, and it changes with alterations in their behaviors. Imagine, for
instance, that a professor makes a joke, so everyone feels more at ease and student participation increases,
which in turn leads the professor in a formal manner. This example illustrates
to respond the
to students less

extent to which we are active participants in creating our everyday realities. It is this participation in the

constructing of reality that is the focal point of symbolic interactionism.

For the symbolic interactionist, the meaning of an action (e.g., a raised hand in class) is defined not by the
act itself or solely within the individual, but through the behaviors (responses) of others. As such, meanings are
malleable and vary over time and across social settings. Although they serve as guides for behavior, meanings

111

111
are never set or predetermined. Meanings continuously change as social interactions unfold and participants
interpret and respond to the reactions of others.
Given its emphasis on face-to-face interaction and the social construction of meaning, symbolic
interactionism more inherently social in its focus than other micro-level perspectives,
is in particular
psychological social psychology (House 1977). Symbolic interactionism is distinct from regular sociology and
the more macro orientations within sociological social psychology (SSP and GPS) because it views human
beings as relatively free from social constraints.

We say relatively free because Mead's conceptualization of the self allows for the regulation of behavior
through the socially based "me." Nonetheless, from the SI perspective, people viewed as creators of societ
are
That is, the of face-to-face y
SI orientation emphasizes the importance interactions in the creation and

maintenance of meanings and (more generally) Symbolic interactionism emphasizes

society. agency-
individuals' capacity to act in a self-directed manner. In choosing certain behaviors over others, people have
the potential to produce, reproduce, or alter social structures through their interactions with others.
It is important to recognize that symbolic interactionism does not deny the existence of social phenomena
that exist above and beyond any one individual or contemporary symbolic
interactive setting. In fact,
interactionists emphasize the fact that encounters occur within the context of a larger society. In
people's social

their view, social structure (statuses, roles, and macro-level societal patterns) shapes people's social experiences

by making it more or less likely that certain individuals will be present in particular settings at particular
points in time (Stryker and Vryan 2006). Social structure also constrains people's actions. Prevailing societal
patterns make it more or less likely that people will act in various ways, but these patterns do not determine
individuals' actions (Snow 2001).
For example, as a college student you are likely to attend class, study, and socialize with other students
because that's what students are supposed to do. However, how and when you engage in these activities is not

set in stone. In fact, you have a lot of latitude in terms of how you play the role of student. You make choices:
you select your friends, develop your own study habits, and decide how to allocate your time. When you make
choices, you are exhibiting agency.

112
The Two Schools of Symbolic Interactionism

As noted at the beginning of the chapter, there are two types of symbolic interactionism. They are
distinguished by the degree to which they embrace the concept of agency. That is, they differ in the extent to
which they emphasize the spontaneous, creative elements of human social behavior versus social constraint
resulting from social structure. The two schools of symbolic interactionism are named after the institutions
where they developed: (1) the University of Chicago and (2) the University of lowa and Indiana University

(Meltzer and Petras 1970; Weigert and Gecas 2003). We review these perspectives in the following sections.

Chicago School Symbolic Interactionism

Chicago school symbolic interactionism is the variant of symbolic interactionism that is the least structural
in focus. This orientation is associated
with the work of a number of individuals from the University of

Chicago, including Mead and Blumer, whose contributions we described in the preceding section

Situational Definition
s
WI. Thomas, a contemporary of Mead's, is also associated with Chicago school SI. In particular, Thomas
emphasized the importance of people's definitions of the situation in shaping their responses to the broader
social environment. Situational definitions are perceptions. Thomas argued that situational definitions, which

may or may not coincide with objective facts (what actually occurs in any given interaction), must be taken
into consideration when studying human social behavior (Thomas and Thomas 1928).

The College Classroom

Situational definitions often vary across individuals. In a well-known study, introduced in Chapter 2, two
renowned symbolic interactionists, David Karp and William Yoels (1976), applied the concept of situational
definition to the college classroom. They were interested in the social construction of meanings within this
context. As noted in Chapter 2, they opted to use nonparticipant observation and a survey to collect their data
because participant observation (the method of choice for most symbolic interactionists) would have been

disruptive to the classroom setting.

Karp and Yoels (1976) argued that professors view the classroom as an arena for the discussion of ideas.
Thus, professors define the situation as one where high levels of engagement are appropriate. Students, on the
other hand, define the college classroom as a setting in which information is to be given to them rather than
created by them. They regard themselves as idea seekers rather than active participants in the creation of
knowledge. From their perspective, participation is not central to the learning process, and talking too much is

a violation of classroom norms (Karp and Yoels 1976

Professors and students
)
also had different views about the reason for students' lack of participation in
classroom discussions. The professors in Karp and Yoels' study assumed that students were hesitant to speak
up in class because they did not want to look dumb in front of their peers. This was not something that
students reported feeling concerned about. Instead, on the end-of-term survey they listed lack of preparation
(i.e., they hadn't done the reading) as the main reason they did not participate in clas

In each of the classes Karp and Yoels observed, there few students
s
(less than 10% of the class) who
10 were a
participated, typically by answering questions posed by the professor, whereas the majority of the class was
silent. The nontalkers knew that they could
count on the few talkers to carry the discussion, which made it
unlikely that the professor would call on them. Karp and Yoels call this the consolidation of responsibility
because it is similar to the diffusion of responsibility that takes place in emergency situations (see Chapte 1

pp. 10-12). This consolidation of responsibility (the fact that nontalkers can count on a few of theirr fellow

113

113
students enough so that no one gets called on), combined with students'
to participate view of the teacher as
the provider of knowledge, made lively discussions within the classroom unlikely.
Creating a classroom atmosphere conducive to the exchange of ideas can be difficult, especially in large
classes.Although much has changed in the 40+ years since Karp and Yoels conducted their study, more current
research (Howard 2002, 2015) suggests that the consolidation of responsibility within college classrooms has

persisted.

What Do You Think?

What about your courses? How many students participate, andwho are they? Do students
respond to the comments of other students, or are their comments mainly in response to

questions from the professor?

If there's variation across classes, list the characteristics that seem to make a difference. What is it
(the professor, the subject matter, the structure of the room, etc.) that increases student

participation? How much of an issue is student preparation?

Compare your responses with one or two of your classmates. As a group, come up with three
strategies that professors might use to encourage student participation in their classes. How are
students likely to respond to these changes?

Fan-Celebrity Encounters

Although faculty and students may have different expectations when it comes to student participation, their
competing definitions of the classroom rarely result in direct confrontations. Ferris' (2001) analysis of fan-
celebrity encounters, based on data gathered using participant observation, provides an example of a social
context within which discrepant situational definitions can result in explicit conflict and, in extreme cases,
legal action.

Fans desire interaction with the celebrities they admire. Generally, celebrities, like everyone else, demand
that their privacy be respected. When overzealous fans seek celebrities out in restaurants, malls, the beach, and

other public settings, celebrities often get angry. In some instances, they experience fear.

PHOTO 3.4 Fans seeking contact with Emma Stone as she arrived for the screening of La La Land at the opening ceremony of the 73rd

Venice Film Festival (August 31, 2016). Source: Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images.

Some of the fans with whom Ferris (2001) completed in-depth interviews indicated that they went to great

114

114
lengths to make contact with celebrities. They followed celebrities from prestaged events, such as conventions
and planned public appearances,
other to restaurants or airports. One woman even went so far as to deceive
the mother of one of her favorite soap opera stars at a golf tournament. The fan posed as a friend of the actor

in order to get his mother's home address. Presumably, she planned to stake out the mother's house. Maybe the

actor visits his mother regularly. If he does, the woman might get to see him in his real life.
From the perspective of the fan, this type of behavior is not problematic, and the celebrity whom she was
seeking to contact nothing to worry about. From the perspective
had of the celebrity, this kind of aggressive
pursuit may be viewed as a threat to their security. There have been instances where celebrities have been
killed by fans (e.g., John Lennon's murder outside his New York City apartment in 1980), which certainly
reinforce these concerns. Behaviors like those of the woman described in the preceding paragraph are not
likely to be viewed by celebrities as harmless and fun. Instead, they are defined as stalking (Ferris 2001), a
crime for which a perpetrator can be sent to jail.

What' Distinctiv Ahou Chicag Schoo SI

s e t o l
Chicago school symbolic interactionism is known for its emphasis on the importance of gaining access to the
subjective realities (the situational definitions) of the individuals studied (e.g., college students and their

professors or fans seeking contact with the stars they admire), the social construction of meaning, the use of
qualitative methods particular, participant observation and in-depth
(in interviews) to accomplish this task, and
the development of theories rooted in dat
a

The Construction of Meaning in Group Encounters

Focusing on social interactions in everyday settings, Chicago school symbolic interactionists often study how
people negotiate power and status within the context of their face-to-face interactions. For example, Schippers
(2008) studied low-income African American girls in middle school and their White middle-class mentors
(female college students). Schippers found that they constructed a status hierarchy though their face-to-face

interactions that differed from that within the larger society. Although middle-class
Whites are of higher status
than low-income African Americans within society in general, the power dynamic that emerged over the
course of the girls' interactions with their mentors favored the girls. The girls made clear their preference for

African American over White mentors, and they routinely challenged their (White) mentors' authority.
Obviously, the girls' dominant status in interactions with their mentors did not alter macro-level patterns of
racial inequality. However, the girls and their mentors did create new meanings for race through their social
interactions. These meanings challenged, rather than reproduced, macro-level social inequalities (Schippers
2008). Like most SI analyses within the Chicago school, qualitative in orientation
Schippers' (2008) study was
and used data from in-depth interviews with the mentors, as well as the mentors' field note
Becker's (qualitative) research on marijuana users, described at the beginning of this s chapter, also illustrates
the application of Chicago school symbolic interactionism. (See Box 3.2 for Becker's view Chicago school SI on
and methodology.) Other studies within the Chicago school symbolic interactionist tradition have focused on
how people define their drug use in ways that enable them to maintain positive self-views (e.g., Copes et al

2016; Hathaway 2004) and on the social processes through which individuals find meaning in discordant
identities, such as drug dealer and cheerleader (Smirnova 2016). In addition, the SI studies discussed in
Chapters and 2 (qualitative analyses of teens working of conceptions of social
1 in coffee shops and class

among college undergraduates with working-class roots) are within the Chicago school tradition.
When people mention symbolic interactionism, unless otherwise specified, it is safe to assume that they are
referring to the Chicago school variety. Chicago school SI is considered the dominant theoretical perspective
within the realm of microsociology (sociological analyses within a micro-level unit of analysis, typically the
individual) and is thus the framework after which the first face of sociological social psychology is named.

lowa and Indiana School of Symbolic Interactionism

15
115
The second strain of symbolic interactionism is associated with the work of the sociologist Manford Kuhn, a
member of the University of lowa's sociology department from the mid-1940s through the early 1960s (Meltzer
and Petras 1970). Since the late 1960s, the work of Sheldon Stryker and other social psychologists affiliated with
the sociology department at Indiana University has been part of this second strain of symbolic interactionism
(Weigert and Gecas 2003). Iowa/Indiana school SI places a greater emphasis on social structure than the
Chicago school does. This distinction is illustrated in Figur 3.
e 3

Box 3.2 A Note on Chicago School Symbolic Interactionism and

Methodology

does social class affect Greek life on your campus?

How
influence students' social relationships in high school
How does social class the you attended?
what ways does social
In meanings they in
class shape students' experiences and the construct

these social contexts?

According to Becker and Geer (1957), two Chicago school symbolic interactionists, these kinds of
questions are difficult for people to answer during an interview for three reasons:

1. People are often unaware of the everyday patterns that are of interest to sociological social

psychologists, or the patterns may be such a routine part of their existence that people do not

believe they are worth mentioning.

2. Participants, who are not themselves sociologists, rarely have insight into why they do what
they do. Many of our behaviors are habitual and do not generate much reflection.
3. There is often a discrepancy between situational definitions and objective reality. People are
biased in their perceptions,
and the information they provide to interviewers may not reflect the
interactions that actually happened. This is not because they are lying but because situational
definitions are skewed by many factors (e.g., prior experiences, desires, and group allegiances or
affiliations).

What would you tell a researcher about social class and students' experiences in your high school or
college? How might the three issues just discussed affect your responses?

Participant observation gives researchers access to most, if not all, aspects of subjects' daily lives. Thus,
it often yields more valid information than in-depth interviews.
Sometimes participant observation is not an option because of the topic under investigation (e.g., how
social class influences Greek life on a college campus, or how it shapes students' social relationships more
generally). In such cases, Becker and Geer (1957) argue that researchers must be cautious when
interpreting their findings. They must recognize that there is likely to be information that is missing or

(This would be an even greater problem focus.) Heeding

misreported. on a survey, given its more narrow
this warning, Becker (1963) notes the care he took in analyzing his interview data from marijuana users

when formulating his theory about the subjective nature of drug-induced experiences.

What's Distinctive About lowa/Indiana School SI

Whereas Chicago school symbolic interactionists focus on the path from selves (individuals) to society,
Iowa/Indiana school symbolic interactionists are concerned primarily with the effects of society on the self
Thus, lowa/Indiana school SI is often referred to as structural symbolic interactionism (Meltzer and Petras
1970; Stryker 1980). Although this orientation is similar to social structure and personality, discussed in the

next chapter, lowa/Indiana school symbolic interactionists are a distinct group in that they are highly
concerned (more so than SSP researchers) with Mead's concept of self. However, instead of focusing on the

meanings that emerge within a given social context as the result of the interplay between the "I" and the "me"

116

116
(the focus of Chicago school symbolic interactionists), they study the content of people's self-concepts, a part of
the socially derived "me" (self as object).
The self-concept refers to the characteristics, thoughts, and feelings that people attribute to themselves
(Kinch 1967; Rosenberg 1979). In particular, lowa/Indiana school symbolic interactionism is noted for its
emphasis on the link between the roles people play and the content of their self-concepts. Insofar as society is
relatively stable (the statuses people occupy persist over time), the content of people's self-concepts should be
relatively stable and thus measurable (Stryker 1980
)

Chicago School S

Self Society

"I "me"

lowa/indiana School S

Society Self
"me"

FIGURE 3.3 The Self-Society Relationship Note: Described in Stryker (1980)

Measuring the Self-Concept

Given their emphasis on stability in the content of the self-concept, symbolic interactionists working within
the tradition of the lowa/Indiana school tend to be quantitative in orientation and use surveys to collect their
data. Kuhn and McPartland's (1954) Twenty Statements Test (TST) is an example of a measure of the self-
concept that can be included on a written questionnaire.
Students commonly respond to the TST by listing the statuses they occupy (e.g., student, sister, athlete,

Catholic, friend). According to Kuhn and McPartland (1954), the TST results validate the assumption that
statuses and their associated roles (the behaviors that people who occupy a particular status engage in) serve as

sources of social identity

Have a go at the TST (opposite). How many statuses did you list? Were any associated with the group
affiliations you identified in Chapter 1 (page 24)?
Not surprisingly, Kuhn and McPartland found that college students who belonged to unconventional
religious groups were more likely than students who participated in mainstream religions to list a religious
denomination as one of their first responses to the TST. Religious self-identification (viewing oneself in terms
of one'sreligious affiliation) is probably less pronounced for members of common, widely accepted religious
denominations because this status is not regarded as a distinctive social characteristic.
We have seen similar results to the TST among our students in regard to gender and race/ethnicity. Women
and students of color are more likely than men and Whites to list their gender or race as self-defining.

Family Roles and College Students' Self-Concepts

Couch's (1962) classic study on the relationship between family role specialization and the content of college
students' self-concepts provides an excellent illustration of SI research within the lowa/Indiana school. Survey
data were gathered

What Do You Think?

117

117
 How do you see yourself? Take out a sheet of paper and write down your answers to the Twenty
Statements Test. Here are the test instructions (taken verbatim from Kuhn and McPartland 1954:69
Kuhn and McPartland usually gave students 12 minutes to complete the test. )

There are twenty numbered blanks on the page below. Please write twenty answers to the simple question "Who am 1?" in the blanks.

Just give twenty different answers to this question. Answer as if you were giving the answers to
yourself, not to somebody else. Write
the answers in the order that they about logic "importance." Go along fairly fast, is limited.
occur to you. Don't worry or for time

1.

2
3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8
9.

10.

11
12.

13.

14.

15

16

17.
18.

19
20.

from college taking an introductory sociology course. The questionnaire included measures
students of the
degree to which household tasks were divided based upon gender (i.e., the degree of role specialization) in each

student's family of origin. Students also completed the TST. As is common, females were more likely than
males to list gender-based statuses (woman or daughter) in response to the TS
Role specialization (the independent variable) was positively associated
T
with self-identification as a man or a

son among male participants, but it was negatively related to self-identification as a woman or daughter

among females (the dependent variable). In families where task assignment (e.g., buying groceries, cooking
meals, earning money for the family) is based on gender, the relative status of men and women is likely to be

striking. Given their high status, it is not surprising that men from these kinds of families were inclined to
think of themselves of their gender, whereas the women (the subordinate group) defined themselves
in terms

in terms of other Both the men and women in the study sample responded
statuses. in ways that reflected their
group's position within society's stratification system.
Family role specialization is still common. In fact, the experiences of contemporary college students are not
that different from those of their parents when it comes to who did most of the housework in their family
when they were growing up (typically their mothers) (Goldberg et al. 2012). Thus, Couch's (1962) findings
probably apply to current students. Among college students today, males are more likely than their female
counterparts to support a traditional division of household labor. This suggests that gender ideologies (beliefs

about appropriate roles for men and women) are shaped

the by the position of one's group (male vs. female)
within society's stratification hierarchy (Goldberg et al. 2012
)

Society, the Self-Concept, and Behavior

In addition to examining the link between social structure and the content of people's self-concepts,

118

118
Iowa/Indiana school symbolic interactionists have focused on how the self-concept shapes behavior. In

particular, Stryker's (1980) identity theory emphasizes the relationship between the statuses people
occupy,
the content of their self-concepts, and how they choose to act in various social situations. In Stryker's view,
how we see ourselves shapes the kinds of social encounters we seek out. Therefore, responses to survey

questions that measure the content of the self-concept can be used to predict patterns of behavior (Stryker
1980). For example, research suggests that high school students who view themselves as individuals who do
science, math, engineering (SME) are more likely than their peers to engage in subsequent
and activities that

have a SME component. Because adolescents' SME identities are rooted in social relationships, increasing high
school students' involvement in SME-based activities with peers should have long-term effects (e.g., the
selection of a college major in one or more of these fields and entrance into a SME career
Interestingly, the self-concepts )
of females appear to change more readily than those of males as the result of

new relationships. This is probably because girls are taught to value social connection more than boys are.
Therefore, school programs that provide opportunities for the cultivation of meaningful relationships centered
on SME activities may have more of an impact on females' future careers than on males' future careers. This
finding is notable given the small number of women currently working in SME fields (Lee 2002
)
Given the underrepresentation of women, as well as racial/ethnic minorities, in science, technology,
engineering, and math-related jobs, Stets et al. (2017) studied how identity processes affect the self-concepts

and career outcomes of college Having a strong science identity, measured

students. as perceived success as a
science student, increased both women's and minorities' likelihoods of moving into science-related occupations
after graduation. Good grades, eschewing behaviors motivated by fears of appearing incompetent, and
participation in science-related activities also increased women and minorities' odds of having science-related

careers, because they strengthened et al. 2017).

the identity (Stets
Strategies
science for increasing the
representation of women and minorities in the sciences (and potentially in technology, engineering, and math
related fields) might focus on identity processes, as well as on academic factors, given the link between the

science identity and subsequent behavior (entry into a science career).

Working within the Iowa/Indiana school of SI, identity theorists have examined the ways that emotions help
people to maintain this kind of consistency between their self-concepts and their behaviors (Burke and Stets

2009). Thus, we discuss research guided by identity theory in greater detail in the chapters on self and identity
and on emotions

Comparing lowa/Indiana School to Chicag School

SI
o
The main purpose of lowa/Indiana SI research is specifying the link between the structure of society and the
content of people's self-concepts. Most studies within this tradition, including Couch's (1962) analysis, and

research by Lee (2002) and by Stets et al. (2017), just described, are quantitative in orientation. Chicago school
SI studies, like Becker'son construction of marijuana intoxication and the analyses
research the social of

competing situational definitions, qualitative in orientation

are
Q: Given what you know about different units of analysis (micro versus macro), from Chapter 1, how
else might one distinguish between the lowa/Indiana and Chicago schools of symbolic interactionism
A: In Chicago school SI research, the unit of analysis is the individual. In contrast, most studies within
Iowa/Indiana school SI focus on the group. The lowa/ Indiana unit of analysis might be, for example,
women versus men or racial/ ethnic minorities versus Whites. Given this, we can say that Iowa/Indiana
school SI is
more macro in focus than Chicago school SI.

110

119
 Versus Structure within the
Agency SI Face of Social Psychology

All sociological social

psychologists acknowledge the effects of societal norms and stratification on people's
social experiences. However, the extent to which they emphasize the power of these social forces (social facts),

versus the role of individuals in the construction of their realities (agency), depends upon the face of
sociological social psychology they are working in.

As illustrated in Whitehead's study of conversations about race and throughout this chapter, sociologists

working within the SI orientation emphasize

agency over They view individuals as active in the
structure.

creation of society. (An exception is lowa/Indiana school of symbolic interactionism, which focuses more on
the effects of society on individuals.) SI researchers argue that we cannot understand the nature of society
without understanding the interactional processes upon which it
is based.

197

127
Evaluating SI Researc
h
The studies discussed in this chapter reflect this theme. They focus on individuals' interactions with others and

on their subjective realities. Thus, they are qualitative in orientation.

Strengths of SI Researc
h
It is by studying behavior in micro-level social encounters that SI researchers have provided insight into how
macro-level societal patterns are reproduced, or challenged, by people's everyday behaviors. Research in the SI
face of sociological social psychology also gives us information about the unique experiences of particular

groups within society. The qualitative studies common within the SI orientation provide a level of detail not
found in most quantitative analyses. With their focus on face-to-face interactions in real-world settings, they

provide insight into facets of people's everyday lives that cannot be accessed in any other way.

Limitations of Research
SI
Qualitative research within the SI orientation is sometimes criticized for lacking rigor, given its subjectivity
and limited generalizability. Moreover, researchers working within the SI face of sociological social psychology
(excluding those associated within the lowa/Indiana school tradition) have been criticized for emphasizing the
individual over social structure. Some general (macro) sociologists and sociological social psychologists

working within the GPS or the SSP orientation feel that SI researchers don't pay enough attention to the
impact of broader social forces on people's experiences.
SI researchers have countered that more macro perspectives, which focus on patterns of perception and

behavior at the aggregate level, overlook the nuances of social life. In their view, social psychologists must
study micro-level interactions and
people's their subjective interpretations in order to capture the essence of
human social behavior

128

128
ChapterSummary

The symbolic interactionist face of social psychology includes Chicago and lowa/ Indiana school symbolic
interactionism, the dramaturgical perspective, and ethnomethodology. With the exception of Iowa/Indiana
school which is more structural in orientation, these theoretical frameworks focus on individuals and face-
SI,

to-face interaction in natural settings. They do, however, address different aspects of everyday life. These
distinctions are highlighted in Table 3.2, which includes a summary of each theoretical framework discussed in
this chapter, as well as the studies we have used to illustrate each type of social psychological research. Given
their subject with the exception of analyses
matter, within the lowa/Indiana school tradition, these studies are
qualitative in orientation

TABLE 3.2 Symbolic Interactionism and Related Perspectives

PRIMARY
PERSPECTIVE UNIT OF ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY STUDIES
FOCUS
Teens working in coffee
Social
Chicago school shop (Besen, Ch. 1)
construction Participant observation
s Indian American
symbolic Individual/interaction of meaning, (with in-depth
students' identity
interactionism situational interviews)
construction (Kurien,
definitions
Ch. 1)

Fan-celebrity
encounters (Ferris)
In-depth interviews
working-class students
identities (Hurst, Ch. 2)

Social basis of
marijuana's effects
(Becker)

Reasons for
Situational nonparticipation in
Observation, survey
definitions college classes (Karp
and Yoels)

Link social Measuring the content

Iowa school
structure, self of students' self
symbolic Group Survey
and concepts (Kuhn and
interactionism
interaction McPartland)
Family role-
specialization and self
identification based on
gender (Couch)

Participant Students' postexam

Self- observation,
Dramaturgical impression management
Individual/interaction presentational observation, in-depth
model strategie (Albas and
strategies interviews s Albas)

Breaching experiments,
Reproduction of
Methods documentary method
through (participant commonsense
Ethnomethodology Individual/interaction understandings of race
which reality observation, textual
through conversation
is constructed analysis of
(Whitehead)
conversations)

190

129
Key Points to Know

Chicago school symbolic interactionism is the dominant theoretical framework within the
symbolic interactionist face of sociological social psychology. Research within this tradition and
within the two related theoretical frameworks (the dramaturgical perspective and ethnomethodology)
is referred to as microsocioiogy.

concept of the self, process of interaction between the "I" and the "me," is central to the
The as a
symbolic interactionist perspective. The extent that social expectations, brought into awareness
through the process of role taking (the "me") versus impulses (the T), govern social action depends

upon the social context in which the behavior occurs. The higher the level of normative regulation
within a given social setting, the more likely the "me" is to reshape our "I" responses, making them
consistent with social expectations.
Because they regard the "I" as giving social action a spontaneous component, Chicago school
symbolic interactionists view human social behavior as unpredictable and unique to the social
context within which it emerges. They focus on the social construction of meanings, which are fluid
and have a subjectivecomponent,
Chicago school SI emphasizes the construction of meanings through social interaction and the
importance of people's subjective experience. Chicago school SI research is qualitative in
orientation and focuses
on behavior in natural settings. Its goal is to access the unique perspectives
(situational definitions) of the individuals under study and to analyze their actions within this context
lowa/Indiana school SI emphasizes the relationship between the statuses people occupy and the
content of their self-concepts (the "me" phase of the self). Assuming stability in self-concepts
rooted in the structure of society, researchers working in the lowa/Indiana tradition use surveys
school

to study people's reflective self-perceptions and to look for patterns at the group level. Iowa/Indiana
school studies are similar to social structure and personality research but are considered symbolic
interactionist because their focus on the self.
of

The dramaturgical model is a variant of symboli interactionism. The dramaturgical model views
social life as consisting of staged c
performances designed to convey positive impressions to
others. Like Chicago school SI, the dramaturgical model focuses on face-to-face interaction and
acknowledges the effects of social context (back vs. front region) on
behavior
Social psychologists working within the dramaturgical framework study process of
the
impression management and the strategies people use to avoid embarrassment in public settings.
These qualitative analyses often involve in-depth interviews or participant observation.
Ethnomethodology is a perspective related to symbolic interactionism that focuses on how
people make sense of everyday situations. Ethnomethodologists are similar to symbolic
interactionists in their interest in the social construction of meaning and their use of qualitative
methods to study social behavior in natural settings. However, rather than studying the meanings that

emerge through social interaction, ethnomethodologists focus on the accounts people generate to make
the situations they encounter meaningf
symbolic interactionistsul and ethnomethodologists regard language and communication
Both as
central features of social life. For the symbolic interactionists, language is the basis of mind and
allows for the construction of meaning. According to ethnomethodologists, people create and maintain
a sense of reality through the (verbal) accounting process.
The symbolic interactionist face of social psychology (with the exception of the Iowa/Indiana
school) emphasizes agency over structure. Whereas sociologists who are more macro in orientation
regard this as problematic, sociological social psychologists working within this tradition argue that
micro-level interactions bear direct study because they are the basis of society.

Terms and Concepts for Review

Accounts
Back region

130

130
Breaching experiment
Chicago school symbolic interactionism
Consolidation of responsibility
Documentary method
Dramaturgical perspective
Ethnomethodology
Front region
"I"

Identity theory
Impression management
Iowa/Indiana school of symbolic interactionism
"me"

Microsociology
Props

Public self-consciousness
Role taking (perspective taking)
Saving face
Self
Self-concept

Significant symbol
Situational definition
Structural symbolic interactionism
Theoretical framework

Questions for Review and Reflection

1. The notion that situational definitions shape behavior is central to the symbolic interactionist
perspective. Give an example, from your own experience or from a public (media) account, of an
instance where two or more people arrived at different definitions of the same incident or
interaction. What impact did these varying situational definitions have on people's behavior?
2. Decide whether the following research questions would be of greater interest to a Chicago
school symbolic interactionist or to an Iowa/Indiana school symbolic interactionist. Explain the
basis for each of your decisions.

a. How do status differences emerge among middle school children? What does it mean
for someone to be of high social status, or popular, within this social setting?
b. To what extent do college students' self-concepts reflect the various statuses they

occupy and the roles they play (e.g., member of a school athletic team, resident

assistant, tutor, or friend)?

c. When and how do college students form study groups? What kinds of social
interactions occur during study group sessions?

3. List three situations where impression management is a key concern. List three social
social

settings where people tend to be unconcerned about the images they convey to others. Which
list was easier to come up with? Discuss the implications of this.

4. How do Chicago school SI and ethnomethodology differ in focus? From the perspective of an
ethnomethodologist, why are breaching experiments a useful method for the study of everyday
life?

131

131
132

132
Endnotes

1 The statements presented here were taken verbatim from the cited monograph, but the format of the text was modified by adding the labels

"Researcher" and "Participant.

2.Like James, Mead is associated with the school of philosophical thought called pragmatism. John Dewey, Mead's friend and colleague at the

University of Chicago Jahoda 2007), was another pragmatic philosopher whose work had a substantial impact on Mead's thinking. In
general, pragmatists define and truth in terms of everyday activities. From this perspective, idea is true insofar as it is
meaning an

effective when put into practice (Honderich 2005).

is
3 Whereas symbolic interactionism has its roots in pragmatism, ethnomethodology associated with a school of thought in philosophy called

phenomenology and, particular, with the work of Alfred Schutz. Phenomenology locates meaning in subjective experience rather than
in
in social processes (Gallant and Kleinman 1983).

133

133