Affect Control Theory: Delineation and Developmentsocpsy/papers/MacKinnonHeise_ACT... · Affect Control Theory: Delineation and Development ... human . COSnition . and . ... acts.

Affect Control Theory: Delineation and Development

Neil]. MacKitmou aud David R. Heise

A«cct control 1hcory proposes chat pcoplt· c<~sr themselves and others into siw:uional idcntilies :md thl!n construct C\'Cnts tO valid;uc semimcms cvokc.-d by the identities while maim;~ining chc integrity of behaviors and the spirir of settings as wdl. The normati,rc coherence of social action ariSt."S from cultural :and institmion:al shaping of identities, behJviors, ;and scnin~ .. Dh·crsh)' :and innov-ation in soci.l :aetion uisc as different sm­tirnc.-ncs gct cvok«l in situuions :md u put cvcnu rcvcrbcr.uc :afTccth•dy.

Event conscruction an occur not only by cnga~png in beha,rior but ;~lso cogni1h•dy by redefining intuacums so thlt their idcmitics h1 their acc1ons-thc kinds of consuuaion cmphu•ztd tn sociolo&iQI labeling 1hrory and psychologic211 tnit-infctt·ncc throry. In ;aO"m control theory rcidt-ntific:;ation processes uc comprchL-nded within the Slmt soci:tiJt.S)'• chologic:al sysrrm th:u go,·cms :action.

Affect rontrol thtory n:gards emotion <15 the experience.· of idrmity \':tlid:uion or inv:alid::nion and as :a C:lpacity for scnsin~ the social struc· turing of rd:nionships. Displays oi cmotiorl broadcast 10 others inforT m:uion :~bout what identities one is cryiug tO maintain :~nd how rhose commicmcnrs ;:.rc faring :and thereby providl· a nonvcrbalnli.!Ch:mism for :anaining intcrsubjecrivity in definitions of situations.

Having bricfl)• sketched 1hc gist of lllc du,:oq·. we HO\\' proceed co our main concerns in 1his css;:.y. In the next section we dt:scribc :am~cc contro' theory through :a systematic Slltcment of the cllt.'ory's key prc.•mises 1nd propru;itions. Then "~ turn to dacr-ibing th( dt"vdoprnent of the thl"'r)t ;and 2 rcbtc:d sociological obj('Ct-thc rt'ic:arch program in which cht theor)' developed. •

• "''' nuy, -·hiCh ron'lbinc:s M .. adUnacwls Fr'Of'01olt.OCUI (ormu~l'" o( ~ffcn C'Onual 1htor)' th~c tw pt"P'rtd (oc ~book (MxKmnon. forthconu"'.) ~nJ Hnw-·, "'od: on his.--

Affm Comrol T!. tory

Tilt Theory

This presentotion displays the sha1>e of affect control theory at the end of 1990. freely incorporating r~sulrs of past rese-arch. In order to provide an unobstructed overview, we restrict our usc of three hallmarks of prior presentations-mathematical equations, citations to the liter:ature, and simulations of social interaction based on a computer implementation of the theory. The interested reader can find equations, citations. and simu­lation results in abm1dance by consuhing the sources listed in our rcfcr­cncc.-s. 0\•crvicws of affect control theory written by nonpanicipmts in the research program uc :t.\•aibblc in Stryker and Statham (1985) and Thoits (1989).

\Vc state rwcmy-four propositions blocked into seve-n groups. The first group. rd;uing co symbols and affcnivc meaning. sketches the general perspectives and methods involved in affect control theory-the men­theory. The second group. focusing on cognitive operations. outlines an auxiliary theory chat is csscnti:al in order to :apply affect comrol theory. Titc third group of propositions presents b:asic principles of affective re­sponse and control. The fourth and fifth groups of propositions relate to event assessment :md event produclion. The sixth group of propositions presems affect control theory's approac,h to emotion, and the bst group of propositions concerns cognitive revision through rcidcntifica tion of interactants.

Symbols and A_D~ctivt Mr.m•ing

J>ropoJiliOII 1. Social interaction is conducted in terms or soda) cogn i­tions of the imcracrants.

The most basic premise of affect control theory is that social interac­tions is symbolic imrractiou. People manage their interpersonal behavior by cognizing (or recognizing) themselves, o thers, and objects, including encompassing scnings. and by invoking classifications of action co inter­pret what is happening. Cognitive definitions involved in social interac­tion arc: par1ially determined by the rnah:ri::al settings in which people find themselves, bm qualit:uivc definitions of situations may differ from <me individual to another because different actors have different agendas and

forinl .an.&I)'Sis of the rese.arch program, hu bcrtdiu:d (rom 1hc ailici5ms .and suggcs1ion~ o( numerous coll<"-~gucs. ln particular, we 1h1nk Ross Uoybn, U rt)' GriOin, T. D1vicl Kcmpt"r. Etic l'luuct. Ham1n Smith, l~ggy Thoits, O.wid brcc, JJ\d the cditon of this volume. M~c.Kinnon's Y.'Ork on afTcet conlrOIIhcory tus bt'C'n sponsored b)' SSHRC Rc­seardl Cnnt ~1().81..Q089, Tht ~reb .alw hu bcndltcd from NIMH Gum 1-ROI­MH29CJ78..01-SSR to Hcise and NSF Gnnt SES 8122089 to L)'l'ln Smith-l ovin.

66 ~UC KINNON AND IIF.ISF.

different historit"s. AOect cont rol t heory makes no claim to predicting individuals' initial definitions of a situation. and indeed those definitions must be :.vaibblc .-s input t.fata in order to make accurate predictions :about social bch;a\•ior.

Soci.:tl inter'JctiOn is influenced by faetors other than the social cogni .. t ions of actors. Matcri.-1 constr:aints (physic:al distance. walls. etc.) limit who assembles with whom. ;md distributions of material resources (like med ical supplies or rtligious an ifacts) limit actions that can be con­structed at a given place :md time. T hus we keenly apprcci:uc studies in social ccolog)' because they help iUumin:uc consmainrs on symbolic in­teraction. furthermore. opportu nities for cvcrw; change dynamk1lly as action proceeds. rc,:sulr_ing in contingencies among events d1at modify human COSnition and motivatiOn, :IS bch:l\'iorists h:ave dcmonslrated. Thus. we apprcci:ate studies of event comingencics and of their psycho­logical cOC.cts in that such studies d eepen understan ding of proccssc.-s in ... valved in symbolic iltteraction.

Propos·itiM 2. Language is the primary symbolic system through which cognitions 1rc represented , acccs~d. processed, 3nd communicated.

Affcc1 control thcor)' focuses o n concepts- cognitions symbolically represented in a Jangu:~gc--:md uses words to reprt·sent social scenes :md happcnjngs and to conduct research on interpersonal processes. Mort."­ovcr, affect control dteory's represenu tion of cognitive process is more influenced by Jinguistic theory dtan by psychology- for example, C\'Cnts :nc strucnucd in terms of C<J.sc gr;.mmar. ~nd other gramnurs arc in· vokcd to expb in within.cvcnt and bcl Wl'Cn•cvcm cognitive constr:.ints. The em phasis on linguistically mcdi:ucd symbolic imcrac:tion rcAcc-t.o; the w~ty people talk about their situations and actions, :and the approach av cords with George Herbert Mead's .classic view of the mind ~san imcrm;] linguisric process of control in which language rnodcratcs between sen­sation and reflective thought . However. we accept that occasion:.lly cog­nitions can be accessed in :t manner unmcdiatcd by lan guage. and we suppose (until convinced o 1hcrwisc) chat the principles of affect comrol theory apply whether construct s :arc linguistically mediated or nol.

PtopcJJiticm J. All social cognitions evoke affective associations.

Cognitions have atl"cc-tive connot:ttions that var)' in intensity and qua) ... ity. For example, ;m attitude-an association along a good ... bad con ... t inuurn- is attached to virtually ever)' cognition . Affective aspects of meaning engage a kind of psychological processing chat integrates soci:al cognitions of different types :md ttut is general across individu;als.

67

Whi!C' sim:uion dC'finitions am.! otlwr cognitive prOCjC:S$<:i .uc the: framework fur social intc.~nion. soci:al dynamics arc brgdy govcmed by .m df«thtc system rdaring to v;alurs, motives, emotions. etc. Cla..uific:uions of places, pc:opiC', ob­jects, and bthaviors get tnnsfor••u-:d imo a domain offeeliiiSS, whcrC' things Jose their qualit<~tivc uniqueness. b(come oompar:able ro one :mother. :and begin obe~·­ing qu:uuit~ti\'C principles. This is :m:alogous to obsen,ing lltu Sun, E.uth, Mus, S.uurn, C'IC • • are identifiable b)' du:ir unique ch:.r'JCtcristics. but the dyn.unics or the solar system :arc govcwed by chc- distances, muses. and velocities of these bodies 11nd the operation of physial bws. {Heise 1987: 6)

t>ropositiotr 4. Affective associations can be indexed to a brgc degree on U11ivcrs:.1l dimensions of response.

AtTcct control theory C2pitalizcs on cxtcnsi"c cross.cuhural research with the ''semantic diflCrcnti3l" which demonstrates that judgments of cv.1luation (goodness). potency, and ;~.ctivity (EPA) arc uni\"crsal dimen­sions of rcsp<msc to both linguistic and nonlinguistic stimuli. Despite the unfortunate naming of the instrument, mc.uurcmcnts made with scnun­c:ic differentials 2ft.' affective r:nher than semantic in l'laturc. as rccogni~cd by the inventor of the instrument rhroughout his Jatc:r rt.-scarch (Osgood 1962).

ncscarch on a !Ten comrolthcory has employed a single set of scJics m measure :all kinds of concepts including social idcmirics. intcrf>('rsonal acts. person modifiers (tuits, status chaucteristics, and labels for t.•mo­tional sratcs). and soc.i:al settings. The rvalullliot• dimension Ius Ucen me:.surt.-d on :a sem~mtic diffcrc..·nti2l scale employing "good-bad'' and "nkc-awful'' as po lar adjectives; the potcnfy dimension, "big-little" and "powcrful-pow·crlt.-ss"; and the aaiuiry dimension, "f.1St-slow," "young­old,'" and ''noisy-quiet." For lll tl1rce dimensions, SC\Ie Vllues rang(" from - 4.0 (infinitely) through 0 (neutral) tO +4.0 (infinitely). where o -I ( + I) represcuL< "slightly:· • -2 (+2) ··,luite:· • -3 (+3) · 'cx­uemely." The "assumed" metric has been refined for each dimension using the method of successive intervals to obtain an approximaccly irl­tc:rvll metric. More rCGt.'1lt work (e.g .. Heise and Thomas 1989: Driu and Heise 1992) implements the scaJc:.-s on computers as graphic rating sc-ales with metric corresponding to visual disunccs.

An Ef>t\ profilr i.s an ordered triplet of numbers reporting the evalua­tion, potency. a1HI lCtivity r2ting~ of some concept within some popub­tion. For example. the EPA profile for the social identity "professor" is 1.5. 1.4. - 0.6 for Canadian male university srudcnrs in nonhcm On­tario. :md that for "smd('nt" is 1.2, 0.2. 1.9. Thus, a "professor" i.s rated on average in this population :as a little above slighlly good. slightly po\v­erful , :md edging tow,ud slightly slow. o ld. and quiet. In contrast. a "stu-

68 MAC KINNON ANO II E l SE

dent .. is r:utd on :1\'cngc u slightly good. neither powtrlcss nor power· fitl, lnd quicc acth·c. lu an example of a bc.h~vionl stimulus ... ,o assault somcon<' is r.n«< by che 01udenu as cxcrcm<ly bad. slighdy pow.:rful. and qui« acri,·e. corTcsponding co chc EPA profile: -l.O. 1.2. 2.0.

While C'valunion. potency. and activity can be: e1onsidcred cross­cuhunl dimensions of 2ff('('fjvc meaning. the EPA mcasuremcncs for par­ticubr stimuli arc expt:acd, of course, to vary across cuhurcs.

CetRm·,;,,, Constrait~ls

ProtJosit,.ou S. Events are constructed in the fumework of 2 definition of the situ:ation thac csu.blishcs the identities of particip:ant·s.

Before inccrflction au mc:::mingfully proct.~d from one evcm to an­other in 50<'i:tl situ:ations. :a plausible interpretation of wh:at is going on hu tO be: sccllcd upon in the mind of each participant. Both cognitive and aiTcctivc: procC1ScS optrare. bur affective processes operate within a cognitive fDmcwork.

Central ~Upcets of rhe cognitive processes devdop from defining the situ;~tion. Using a linguisric meuphor, we might say chat the definition o( the sinntion is 2 cognitive process th.ar u.seo1blcs 2 ·woddng .. lexicon .. of actors who an enter into events: •• A definicion of the situation iden­tifies the scu ing and the relevant persons and objects that uc prC$C:Ot, so it prcsc:nts the .actors and obj«tS dut nn be oomblncd into recognition or events in thou situation'' (Heise 1979: 9). Ocfming a situation involves complex perceptual processing in which variou.s conceptual sch<."mcs arc raised and C'I11Crt:ained, and people's identitil!'$ are sdcctcd so as to be in .. stit\1tion:.lly comp2rible with each other. TI1c definition of the s ituation :al.so may urili7.c knowledge of rirual or scripted behavior, and may in­volve nc:goti:uion with other observers prt..-scnt at the scene.

Ahhough c:ul)' work in :.fTcct conrrol theory crc:ned c:.ch person :at a scene as the courier of one relevant identity, current work allows chat the )e)(icon of po1cnti:al social p·articip:mt.s :at a scene might be complic:uffi by chc cxiscencc ofidcnriry hierarchies for <ach individual.

Prop9siti"" 6. Gramm:uial structures of various kinds corutDin event con.scruction.

Affect control thC'Ory considers soci2l c\'cnts to be org1ni.zcd in terms of asc grammar. An ABO rvmt consisu of an actor (A) performing a bcha>-ior (8) on some obj«t-pcrsoo (0). Smith-Lovin (1979, 1987) ex­tended the case gr.ummr an:aJysis of events to ABOS tvmts: an actor pc:rforming a behavior on an objccc-pcrson wich the social selling (S) forcgrounded, n in the sentence "The priest blessed the soldiers at the

Affw Comrol Tltrory 69

baul~front. " Avcrctr (Averett and Heise 1987) c:r<tcndcd the case gram~ Jll3r idea to incorpor.uc modifiers (adjecti ves) into identity spccific2tions. as in "The angry mother scolded the naughty child.,.

Two of the case slots in an event (A and 0) gcr filled from the av-ailable so<ial identities at the scene. Selection of a construct to fill the behavior slot is limited by selection of actor and object if we adopt the nolion of projection rules (a grammatical principle in semantic thtoq•) and suppose that soci:~.l identities generally have char3ctcristic acts associ:ucd with them. Doctors, for example. arc expected lO counsd and medicate; pa~ ticnts, listen and obe)•. Thus, the problem of determining what is hap-­pening is constuincd by knowledge of who is :acting.

The construction of cvcms also is structured by situ.arionally specific gnmm:ars of action (which :ne di~cusscd in the second half of this es.s:ty). An action grammar implies that possible c"·cnt constructions at any mo­ment ue limited brlogical :and causa_l thinking about what has happened previously and what is supposed to h:appcn in the future.

Affutillt Rtspcmst aud Colllrol

Propo.sitiou 7. Tilt Affittivt·Rtaaiou Priut iplt. People rc;1ct affcctivcly to every social event.

This can be considered the first postulate of :affect control theory proper. While the idea follows in an c:-lcment:1ry \Vay fron-'1 Propositions l and 3, affect control theory cxp:tnds the idea with the resc:uch-b:llsed understanding that events generate new affective meanings rcg.uding the ac-tor. the recipient of action, the behavior. and the scuing.

According to :affect control theory, the affective associations thlt were lttotchcd to cognitions before an event arc tT3nsformcd by the C\1ent into new feelings that may differ from prior ftooeHngs in direct ion :and /or in­tensity. Different eve-nts produce diffe-rent effects. For example, " 1

rnoth cr scolding a child" generates feelings that arc somcwh:u negative for both rn othcr and child; but ·•a mother hugging a child" produces feelings that arc positive. The <~ffcctive rcspon.scs gcneratc...-d by events are called mmsinrt in affect control theory. because subscq\rcnt events may undo them.

lmprenion formatit'm <'quatious modd the process by which prior ft'CI­ings about social idcntitic..-s and interpersonal acts combine during event cognition and generate new transient fcdings. We will not prcscllt im­pres-sion formation equations here because they arc complex with many multiplicative interaction terms, and there is an extensive literature on them that is readily available (sec the affect control theory citations in our reference list). However, cx:amining :a few predictions from these cqu:a-

70 MACiitiNNOS AND IIIISii

'"''" ollustr>tc:s the procnJCS tlut the cqU>rions n:prcsnn Among female: C.n.td~n colkae >tudnlu ~moth.,..- has the EPA proliw 2.7. 1.6. 1.0. \nclaCahn8, dut 1ft lt'ftn",,J mochcn 2R' consu:kf't"d 10 bt C'XtrC'mdf Jood~ qull< P""'nful. •nd llightly ..,;,..,_ Tbr onnsimt feelons• for mo<hcr af­t« the event " moth« scolds chilcl. -· u r;mentcd by the omp....- for­mauon cquauons. os - 1.4. 0.9. 1.0. Thus. the """"'oon os tlut • mo<h« "ho " ucn to b< I<'Okling hu child (without known JU•Uhatio<o) b<­con>tt JOmewhat nesarh·cly .,. .. J=ed md vkwed :as JOmcwhat redueed m potency wh•lc chr improsion of her transient acuvuy lcvd rcmains unc:hJngcd.

AfTecrivc meaning for the objeet-pcrson abo undcrgott revi5ion as :. t'Onscqnenco of the event. The gccncral EPA profile for "child" is 1.7, - 1.1, 2.5. indic•ting d Olt a child is considered quire good, slightly pow­cries.!! . . :md cxm:mdy active. The irrnprcs.sion forrn.uian cquacions predict ch.u chc C\'cnt '"mmhcr scold1 child" tr.m.sfornt.t tht":SC feelings into the tnnsi<nt imprcuoon -0.4, -0.5. -0.6. indiaring rh>t the child drops in eYaiU>IKIII Or Joodii<SS by vinuc of being I<'Oidcd, b<coni<S los poW• trk-u. and aunu dnm.uia.Uy kss urivc:.

lkhavoon abo ~;ct aff«ri,..,ly colored by the coni<XI of the <Y<nL For exaonpk. •«c>rdmg ro om pression fonmuon cqtuiJOIU, the aa of scold­ins (£PA proftk of -0 4. 1.7. 0..7) drops (urthn"' ev.li~Ucion wl>m p«f01mcd on • good object-person likr • child, tlcdmc:s >loglnly 111 pc>­cmcy. but ~m•ons asmW!Iy consunt in rmru of acu.-ry W.-d.

Finally. the aiTcah-. maning o£ a S«<ing is >n8urn«d b)• evmu when the S«ung " fo~groundcd and pe-rah·ed as • component of thr .-·ent. "Thus pbccs arc vorwed as more pleasant when they have b<m the scene of roncihator)'· inquisitive acts Hke Appease. Consult. Contemplate, Josh Jlld Serve. C011vcncly, smings which have b<en drr.lrd by violcnc, ag­gressive inlcr:actions arc viewed rcnospcctivcly :as unplc;~um J)l::.ce~ or N"'"'I" K;'' (Smilh·Lovin, 1987: 91).

l,_e~po.tlt•'o11 H. 'l'l~t A.O:i•ct c.,,u,.,J Pn'miplt. People try to experience C\'tllb thou confirm fundamental sc:ntirncnu.

AITca concrolchcory propoJCS that. a pan from cnnsiCTir fcchnp pro­duced. tn puuculu circulll.Sbna:s. C\'"Cf'Y con«pe c.o~.nia a fixtd :affcaivc JnC'~n1ns; Tbit tl 1hc JIF'teti\-r assoc:i:ati.on o( a conapc on ill own. a put from combuu<>OM with other coocq>U. Coiled • }t~ ,.,.,_ m aiTca <oootrol tb<Ofy, thio al'f«ri,.., ..-iauon ,. opa.auonoliud as the avcnJ!< EPA profik for • coocqK: outside of my 0\'<tlt context u nted by a cvltur>lly hornog.....,.,. group of r<Spond<nu. Fundammt:al senD­moots an: ho&hly mbl< and arc culrurn on the sense char von .. ally cb< """' EPA profile for • rono.opt an b< obtained by rcpcaoed umpling

Affttt Comrol Tlrtory 71

from thC" umc population. ahhough sampling from :a difT~rC"nt popula­tion often yields quite • different result.

One u~ of funcbmcmal senti menu in affect control chcor)' is to ~~ ~fT«tive cu nsicms in a sitwtion before ~ny c-.-ctlCJ h~VC' o<a1nfil. How­t'\'~r. it is their other function ~~ is theoretically crucial. Funcbmmu .J scnt-inlc=nts scn·e as re-ference points throughout a soci~l imennion. and mnsimt fNiings constantly are assessed in CJomparison with fundamen­t~! sentiments. A<"Clording to affect control thcor)'. exencs arc connruncd in order to oom rol run.sient feelings and to make transient feelings con­sistent with fundament:al st"nriments.

The discrepancy bc.:twecn trans ients ;md fundaUIC'Uials is so imporunt in affect control theo ry that it is identified by a specific conc.c:pt. The drflttticm produced by an event is the sum of squared dif'l'Crences between transient feelings omd fundamental sentiments. conlputetl :across all di .. mcnsions or :ttTcccive response (EPA) and :~~cross all components of :m event (ABO, or ABOS).

The baJic motintion•l principle in •ffc:ct control theory is that people construct or rcconsctuCl events so as to nu.int~in consiste-ncy bt-t\\'Ccn u:ansit'nt (ulings and sentiment$. The principle is viewed :as pcr,•uivc in socialli(e. h constuins the: inte-rpretation or others· Mh~vior. it guides conduct a.s one nics to v:alid~te identities or co restore meanings aftrr disruptive C'\'cms. it structurr:s the rrinterpreadon of others' id('tltitics through labeling processes or trait inferences. In .U these C05CS, the thro­mical supposition is that individuals :a.re op<-:ratiug in such a W))' u to gmente consistrncy between transient feelings and setuimmts.

The afTcctive-reaction premise pertains to the effect of pas t C\'Cnts on prescm affecti\'e states. Tite :affect contr01 prcmiS<' peruins to the retum effect rh:u affect has on events vU interpretive and constnJctive work. The rwo principles conjoined yield :a cybcrnc=tk model that accoums for :.ffeccive responses co events :md due aJso predicts cognitive ~nd behav· ioul connruccions.

Ju:n as the aO'"cccivc--rc:ac&ion premise is opcr;ationalitcd in impression form~rion equuions, chc affect control premise is opcr2tiunalizcd in im· prtssicm ma,agtmtrrt tq,arions. The impression m.an:agrment equ:ation.s :are derived 013lhcm:uicaUy from the: impreuion formation cquuions using the alculus to implemem the assumptio n that a constructed event mini· miz.cs discrc~ncics bct\\'tttl u·ansimt imprusions and fundament::tl St'tl·

riments. We do not pre:snu the equarions httc bcau.sc the)' are cxtremdy complex. and ~mp1e diKussions of the dcrivarion.s and of the equations •rc •voibble elsewhere.

Pr.,positil>n 9. Tht Rttonstrunion Prinfiplt. Implacable luge deAraions instigacc changes in the sc:ntimc:nts which ue bein g used to ~ppni.sc

72 MA C KINNON AND I-lEl SE

rhc nu:;;aning of C'\'Cnts such chat the new scndrnetu\ ur: confirmed optimally by rcrC'tu C'Vmts.

In cyl><m<'tic r<m,.. high<r-ord<r f«dback ktdtS in co r<ducc dcflc:c­t.Jom. when 10\~~o'tr-ordcr fecdbuk fails to nui111.1in ro•uistcnC)' betw('("'l tnns1a1t imprcs~ion!; lind >enlimcnts. In ordinarJ·Ianguagc. if ptOplr a rr­nol confirm fundamcnul smtimmts through :~ction. then thC)' Ghlngc thb sc:ru irm:nts tlut they nc trymg to confirm.

An unsolv(d problem is lsccru ining wh('n JH:Oplt" will rt."'\Ort t

change o f sencimerus u ther than trying co :nuin confirnurion chroug~1 action. Psychological Htcraturc suggests that unexpected C\'cnts lead rr, trait inferences about :1ctors, and in affect conrrol clu.'ory th:u would me;an that high-deftectiorl events instigate rccons1rucrions. l-lowcvc~. some sociologic-al literature <1nd numerous unpublished :m:.lyscs of per­son:. I inddcm~ hy coll"·gc smdems indicate thO!t people stick to defini­tions of shu:uions for prolonged periods. even when event$ f:ail 10 con­firm scutinu:nts.

J\t this pt.>int. our lx."St guess is th:at rccon.suuctions ~ct invoked when .an event occurs thl t disconfirms sentiments ~nd l:ucr c~o·cms rt\'c::al thlt the intcucunts :are not engaging in rcpanth•e :actions. Our formal propo.siuon, howC'\'Cf, forgoes such a sp«ific:uion and rcfcM )imply to .. impbnblc luge dcfl«tion.s-. ··

later proposicions apply the r«onstrunion prinoplc co cognitive dungn-th;at is. to c-hange in scmimcnt.s obtaencd by r«onccplu.tli~ing ptoplc. \Vc suspect that the: rec:ons:tntnion principle also pcon;ains 10

how scncimcnt.s get .ttuchcd to cognitions in the firsr pbce. though we arc not prcpncd ret 10 s tate a proposition on sentiment formation and ch:mgc.

l!'vt·ut AsuSJmt·m

l'rt~posititm 10. l!vcncs :tte recogni2cd within chc framework of a de­fined sicu;uion. P,..,po.sitiort II . Gr:tmm:nia l stntccurcs cozlstr~in event n·coonidon.

Th~o.'SC' two proposittons simply :apply e;arlit:r proposuions co deal with the specific problem of cvrn1 recognition.

l:it-tolp91itum 12. The likdihoods of c'\-ml incerprc:t.uions arc ln\'CfSC'Iy

rcbccd tO thC' ;affective' disturbances they produce.

This proposirion is :a chcorcrinl dcriv.ation. ACC'Ording to the 21fftct roncrol prinnple. pcop1t seek to experience low~dlccuon events, and therefore gwen the o pportunity 10 cognize 0111 C\'C'nl in eidv:r a Jo, •-

Affict Cmuml Thrf'f)' 73

deflection or a high~cAcccion way. they will choose the: low~c:Acetion intc:rp~urion. Thus low~dlcction C\'mts should be: obSt>rvcd more of­trn th:an high..ddkctiorl C':\'cnts.

This proposiuon pro,•idC"S a basis for undrrstauding how :atTcetivc d)·­namics inAun10: evan recognition. To illus:cr.uc. mr:tn :tru would be judged by most people u unch:<~uctc'risric of moe hen. pnurubrly a( di­reCted cowud good J.nd vul~ubk obj.tct-pc~-nons likt duldrcn. If a n1othcr is pe-rceived possibly to be rormt'nring her "hild. in :ahemni\·c :tCI might ~selected as a more likely intcrprcurion-ptrh:ap$ the mother is only t~sing. playing with. or bluffing the child. The event ... mother torments child.·· is :avoided, not bec:tust' it is incomp:uiblc with pc:rcc.·p­tions in rhis cx:.mplc. bur because it is disconfirm ins of the sentiments (or morhcr :ln(l child, ami :~hcrn:nivc intcrprcucions provide less disturb­ing t'XpcdcnctS ro r the observer.

ProtJOJitiotr 1J. The perceived likelihood~ of c."vcms arc invcr·sdy re­lated co the affccch•c disrurb2nccs they produoc.

This: 1>roposition o n be viewed ;~s ~ theorclinl dc.·riv;~cion obuinablc with some: auxiliary :assumptions. By the affttt control prinaplc. people try to cxpcncncc events that minimize ddtcction. Therefore. if people ha\'t the f,ccdorn co cxacisc thcir pn-ft'm'tCC"S, C\'~••ts that C'rcatc l.argc affc:nivC" dt'A«uons should be rare. And if people uc cogniunt of thl$ r>ncy. the)' should judge such events as unlikely.

Fondmgs tcpon<d by Heise >nd M•cKinnon (1987) r<"">l tim the per­ceived likelihood or cvt:nts docs indeed vary invcncly with che Jmount of deflection produced by the events., and events chat produce nussive dctlc:ccions :.lways ue pcrcdved a.~ unlikdy. Vet. affective dcflc.•ccions :u:o­counc for Only :about OllC third o( the V;tri:mCC in ratingS or eVCnt fikcJi­hood bcc~usc many cv.;.'1US that produce liulc affective dcAcction arc viewed as unlikdy ;~nyhow. T his result was round in the I Ieise :and MacKinnon ::~n;~ lysis of United St:ues &u~ and w2s rcpli<.'1tc.-d in Mac· Kinnon's (J98S) C:.nadian study.

When analyses uc rt"Stricn~d to cvcms involving :.ccors with standard institutional idC'ntitic."S (e.g .. family roles. legal rolc."S. and ~o on). tml_ikcly tow-ddlection C\•ents uc e:liminatcd and high Jcve:ls of pre:d1cUbility uc obta.inrd. When .1nalyscs arc rcstriat'd to c\·crus v.-ith ;:anors having inscj... tudoaully vagut' idtntitlcs (e.g .• child. hero. as wen as mildly deviant identities 5uch OJ snun.,kck. loafer). esp«ially low levels of predict­ability uc obuinc:d. ThettforC', Heise and MacKinnon re;uoncd th.lt in­stiuaciorully clc-u idmtitics provide a, definite cognici\'"C ronccx·t and auto­m:nk:tlly iturigacc affective proa:s.scs th2t go\-cm likdihood rnc:ssmt'nt. However. idencitics chat :arc vague c:aJI for so much ~Xtrl cognitive work

74 MAC K I NNON AS U H fJISe

111 order co makt sc.·nsc of an ~vent dcscrlprion th;u an t\'CIH m~y seem fu.fccchcd :IJtUt from afftctivc: dynamics.

Onguully it was bclit:\'cd there would bt- a right conntalon bc-­<wan dcR«:Iion. perc<ivtd likelihood. and <he actual probab1lil)" of an rvrnr OC'C\Irring. buc rC"Senc:h inditald that tht' linkage i.s, a loost onr. Events th11t produce linle dtfkction m.ay rum out to be r:uc bcnwe they ha\'c no mscitutional support. Events ch:ar produce :a great de-Al of drAcction for cso m:a)' occur bc:ause chcy arc in.scinuion:d ly required. or :all ch;;n i~ poss1bk· in some circumst:anccs, or bcc:msc othcn define the situ:acion dill"crcmly. or ochers have: different scnumcnu ch:m ego docs. Thus we.• prefer co interpret the propert y of events which dcAccrion pre· dicu; not :as their objec-tive probobi_lity but as t h<:ir singubrity. lllghf deflection t'VCIUS seem singular. unique, extraordinary, :and when such events occur, chcy uc experienced as cxception:;~l , out ... of .. thl""Ordin:uy luppcnings .

Rr'tlll l~l,aicll

Pr-Dpctsiliotr 14. A p<-rson dtovdops actions by t'mploylng ~icuational idnuici!>"s of Kif and other~ :let or and obj«t.

lltopCJSilion IS. Actl011S art' produced within tht' COU$1f210lS or rdt"\'1111 gnmnurs.

Producing 111 Ulltrpc-rsonal event implies filling m the sloes of an ABO struC1urc. For the one who is constructing :an t'\'tont. the choice of actor l$ Jettlcd- u c.s the self (in the guise of a situ:uioru.l identity): in .l dy.ad the choice for obj<.-<t also is obvious- simpl)• 1hc- othe-r in hi~ or her Jitu­alional identicy. Of course, chc possibility of ~ch individu:1l t;lkiug on multiple idemirics in 3 situation complicates matters, and in groups brger tlu n :a dyad choice of a rcdpicm becomes incrc:1singly problem· :uic. We :~ssmnt• d1at srlcction.s arc restricted by the opt.·rarion of cogni­tlvc ~r;unm:ars a nd minimh:.c affective disturbance.

Selection of a behavior is constrained to the lcgitinu tc repertoire of ac:"tions :assigned to one's idcnti1 y; this is the projcnion-rult- idc;a lppJied tO event production uthcr than to event recognition. Additionally the r~sibiC' aclions lt the moment uc Hmiccd by what has h~ppcncd previ­ously-• he c.tu.ul and logical constraints impliC'd by a 5ituational gram· mu of acc1on. Tht 2ccion gramnur also m::ay gi\·c s.alicn« to some pu· ucular bch;I\'IOr thlt as essential in orckr co reac-h 'J goll t\·cnc.

PmpoJrllon 16. Tht hkdihood 1ha1 • person will tng>g< 111 one feasible bch;a,•ior rather than lnOthcr is inn~rsdy reb ted to the atTccu'~ discur­b:an«S th;n the- behaviors product".

75

According to am~ct C()ntrolchcory. cognicivc f.actors C)•pically limit the c.hoicc of ~havior co a $Ct or "free v:ui:atrs'' (co usc another linguistic metaphor), and at due point afT«tivc processes nurow chc choi« to a single option. In panicubr. 1 penon ·will rnact the behavior th:u mini­mizes deflection of outcome imprc:ssions from fundamC'f1t'21 scnlimmcs. This propc>Jition follows di~ctly from the principle of affca control: people suk co cx-~ricncx cvnus 1hat confirm fundamcnul sentimcms, :and thncforc. when responsible for the production of a new cvmt, :a person will choose a behavior in such a way u to crcltc an cvcm tlat minimim dcftcctions.

At one time it SC'cmcd plausible that behavioul responses to past events ;~rc selected in terms of how much they reduce dc:flcction. bm an •nalysis by Wiggin< •nd Heise (1987: 156) indicar<-d thnt lnrsc cnrrcnt dcRcction5 do no( incrc-:tsc the likelihood of a rcstor:uivc event. The con .. scructiou of events is go,·cmcd sim ply by how much dc:nection chcy pro­duce. not by how much improvement they offer. Of roursc. currc.·m dcftcctions do inftuencc the ch;an.ctcr of a subsequent event: if someone h:~.s b«n mortified then evcms will be: buih to rcg.ain .1 )CfUC or sc~tu~ ;and power, whcr(» ;an unpreccnrious respor~ should occur if t\:uttr)' hu mldc feelings about self coo posidvc. These predictions about the chu­actu of tdponscs were suppon.c:d in ;a bc:h:;~.,--ionl cxperimC'fn conduacd by Wiggins (Wiggins and Heise 1987).

Affect control chcory's propo.ul that m mdi,·idual bch;aw:s so u to minimiz.c dcArctions for the self does nor mt:an chat n·e11ts arc con­Structed co confirm the 3ctor opcinuiJy but ruhcr co confirm optim:tlly the :actor's overall mc:tning systcm-du~ sclf.idcmity. the other's identity, and the rnc~ming of the behavior that is chosen. l-leiS<''s ( 1985) )tudics of difi'crcrui:~l weighting for these different components or lit event led to th e gencr;1l conclusion th:u confi rmation of each componcnr is about cqu=-lly imponanc.

An :tct th:u is confi rming for the sc1f rna)' be d isconlirming for others if they have different .sentiments o r 3 different clcfi•licion of the siiU:~tion. Thus socbl prc..-dic:uncnt.S m~y arise in wl1ieh iutcracums counter cJch othcfs efforts to m:tintain mc-:~nings. pctlups even gcncr:uing unst:able inc·rc:.u" in deflection that make a sequence of h;~ppcning.s seem more and more singuloar :and incredible to the p;anicipantS. Such sccncs m.ay ttSuh in rcconscnu:don.s ofidouicy. u discussed la~t•r.

i>Top()Jilitm 17. In the course of valid-adng social idcntitiC'S pcoplt t-n· gage in rok appropriate acts.

Social idcmiti<S can be trat<d as culturally d<fin<d soci•l roles subjc<:­ti\·cly \•ic:wcd. TituS, in the prOC('S$ of conducting chcmsch•cs $0 :lS CO

76 MA C KISN ON AND HEISI!

ronfirm soci-.al identities, people thtorccioHy should be enacting sociJJ rolt.•<.

One of chc m:ajor rcscuch findings uising fTom 2fTecc conrrol chcory is ch:ac idcnth)'-confinning uts do indttd indudc chc: functional :act'i,•i· tic:s J{OSil)rtc:<l co SO<"i21 rol~-for example. •·medic:ning .. is :an idnuity­confinning an: for :a doctor with :a p,adent. ··~mcncing'' is an idcnrit)'­confirming act for a j udge wich a thief. Morct)\'Cf. identity ronfirmuion in tht' context of disrupli\'C prior events yields sanctioning :activitit"S, d· chcr positive or ncgarivc depending on chc circtmlstanccs.

The allc.rtive S)'Sccm impels people to perform the same role act ions ch:at :m.! function:.! :1.1 chc institmion:JI Jc,•cl. Moreover, the afftclivc sys-­tem allows people co improvise creatively in order to perform roles :ap· proJ)I'i:uely even when cir<:umst:mc;es arc so ~pcd.-lth:u nn instittuional· h.cd fl':IPOilSC L4i known,

Soc:1al roles typically arc defined in ter ms of social StruC'tur.tl position <J.) well as functional conduct. Rcst.~rch in afTccc control theory adopts a direct cr;msbcion of an identity's Evalu:nion ami t>o1cncy imo corre­sponding role status (prcscige) ::and po1vn. fo11owing Kemper :md ColJins. (I'J'JO). For example, m•k Ont>rio undcrgr.~duot<S providcchc following El'A prorilts for f1thcr. mother. son, 01nd dl.ughtt"r, rnp«tivcly; 2.5, 2.6. -0.6: 2.5. 1.0. -0.1; 1.1. 0.4. 1.2: 2.0. -0.2. 1.3. Th~ fogur<S >rt intcrpmtd to mnn that in a typinl Ontario middlc-dass (antily mother ;and (.uher have «Jual )nd high statu.~. ;and thcrcby the-y garner consldt"r­ablc \'Oiunt:ary rornp1iancc in f1.mily s.ituuioru: a daughter l.lso has high st:nus while :a son has considerably IC"$$ th.an other famlly members. Meanwhile. the power u nking allows fa ther co have hh WA)' rcgardlcs' or other's wishes. with mother being :a powerful subordinate o( f:nhcr and the children being rd:ui"cly powerless in f:unily siwuions-daughter even mon: so th:u1 son.

[;"m oti<IUJ

l'ropoJIIiOII /8. Tltt Emoticm Pri, ciple. An intcrJct:un's emotion follow­ing ;an event rcftccu the outcome of the t"vcnt and :al!Jo the identity th:u the ~rson •s nuint'<1inins. Specifically. the emotion i.s a function of (a) the u:msicnt imprmion of the intcncc:am th:at \\'OlS Ctt"ltcd by the C\"t"nt: and (b) the discrepancy bct\\'C'Ctl this tnnsient impression and the fundamental kntimcnt as.soci:uc:d with the intcr.lCum·s snu;morul identity.

In affcn ronuol theory, cmorion is modcled as a dynannally vuying :.uributc of sdf 1hat tr.lnsfonns SC'If-idcntity into the social impression

i\ffr<r Comrol "fllrory 77

which hn been cre:ucd by t\'t"nts. n,(' modrl, dc,•clopcd nuchcrnadc;~lly from cqu~cions defining how n\odi.fiers con1binc: with idcmilics. implies that emotion is a funCtion of rwo f-aaors.

The fine futor rorr~ponds to commonsnlS<' idcu 1bout emotion. Evtnts that lc;avc us in a poslch·ely a-alu:atcd st:<ttc produce posirh·c cmo· tions. C'\'cnts ch.tt move us to negatively cv.tlu~tcd stnt'S result in ncgnivc: emotions. C'\'tnts thou produce transient fc:clings of Jivclin('SS produce cmolion~l ao:iv:uion. and so on.

The second faccor represents a relativistic aspeCt of c molional rc­spomc. Onl''S overall cmorional scatc dept·nds no1 only on how o ne is doing :~;bsolurdy but also on how one is doing rd:uivc to wh~t is to be expected 011 the basis of one's idcndty. For cx:unp1c, events may lc;avc a person in :. positively evaluated sc-ate. but th~ person m~y not be happy if th:at transient sure is less positive on evaluuion 1h;111 cxpccccd by virt\IC or the person·$ current identity.

The emotion model is :1 rellcivel\• recem :addition to :afTcc.."t control theory. :md its prcdicti<ms .still h:avc t~ be t~tcd sy:ttt"m:uicall)'· llowe\•er. the model dO<'S pbusibly sp«ify C"motions that might at'comp:any :~ooci:al events. for cx:amplt". :according 10 predictions from the model ('"-e con­tinue a prior example with Urudtan data}. a mother who scolds her chold should foci incc or mad, and !he child lxing scolded should ftcl u.nuS)' o r remorseful.

PropMitiou 19. PcoplC' tmd to maintain emotions th:ac u-c c:haucceris­tic of their salient identities.

This proposition follows from prior ones with :111 :auxiliary assump­tion :and the und<'Nt:lnding th:u "1 salient idc:nrity is one ch:at gets invoked in many sim:ations. T he affect Gontrol principle implies th:u people try to maintain impressions of thcmsc1ves th:at m;~tc:h the scmiments att.'lched to their s.alicnt identities. Assume that dtcy typically succeed. Then the discrcp;~ucy factor in emotion is eliminated. :and thc crumions the)' fed ~a result of thdr conduct are a function simply of the impressions pro­du«d by th:u conduct. But because they arc successful in confirming their salient idclltitic.·s. 1hesc outcome impr~ions m:atch the sentiments for their idcnthiei', so the emotions they fed havt' profiles nt:)tching their idcntitin. T1tus. the maintm'ilf'l« of posith·c identities would lead co the expnknCC' of po:sirive tmorions, the: nuintc:nantt of negative idmtitics to nqptivc t"motions.

With this proposition affttt controllheory interprets chron1c affcah•c disordt'rs like dcprt"S.sion as problems based on chr nuimnunoc of ncgJ­th·cly <'valuatt"d selv~.

78 MACKINNON AND IIIll S£

Proposition 20. Emotion displays f-aciHt:at~ imcrsubjc<tive sharing of d~finitionJ of sinutions and of the opc:r:arivc social suucturcs thu a~ implied b)• definitions of the situation.

Accordang co :affcct control theory. emotion is the cxpcria'K'C' of one's identity in th< oont"''~ of r<cent events. Consequently an o\·tn display of emotion by ego shows others how ego is cxpcrlcneing his or her identity and. gi\'Cit some agrccmcm about C\'Cflt5 that ha\'c occurrfll, :allows oth· crs to infer what scmimcnts ego must be trying to nta.int:ain. Th:at is. others c.1n deduce some of ego's ddinitions-c\•cn if they do not ini· tialty sh:arc chem-by observing ego's emotion displays as cvcncs occur . .. (EJmotions arise :as events do :and do not confinn convcnrion:a11cvcls of status, power, :md cxprcss ivity-thc EPA profile- for c:ach person's situ­:uion:al identity. The emotions function as subjective and interpersonal signals concerning how the process of soci;d confirmation is going" (Av<r<tt and Heise 1987: 123).

Inferences c:m be made from emotion displays about how :another views the opeurive socUI structure in the situation. The point correbrcs with ide;a.s in the sociology of ~mot-ion: emotions rcAca soc:Ul s tructure. so much so thlt unlutlu~nck e.xprnsions of emotion (t.ntotio n work) m;a,y be cocrttd in order 10 lend powerful intttactants an aur~ of sc~rus th21

chC"y daire.

Co.(ttitiw Rrvisions

l""positit~n 21. Social labclings render p:ast eventS mo re credible by assigning incer~cnnts new identities rbat are confirmed by che pur events.

Sori411 luhtli"g processes. a topic nudic-d m1inly by sociologists, assign people new soci:tl identities in pb.ct of old ones. Affect control theory's formul;uion rcg:arding l:abcling derives. fro1n the reconstruction principle and is :u fo llows.

Suppose th:u the :a.c:ror in a rccem event is co be reidentified. Then the bC"havior and rhe: object in the evcm serve a.s givens. and the: objective is to render the recent cvem more plausible by rcdcfinjng the iCtor in 2 w2y thlt m inimizes Jffccrive disturbance. in essen« asking. '"Wh2.r kind of pc:rson would perfom1 suc.h a bc:havior on that object-person?" AhcmJ­tivcly the JC'IOr 2.nd the bc:h2.vior an scn ·e u knowns. :a.nd the objca­p<non ean b< rt<kfincd, asking, .. Wlut kind of pason warnnts or seeks th~t beha,·ior from that actor?"" In either asc. the given p2.n o f the event impli.s an appropri>t< s<ntiment for th< p«<on b<ing lab<lcd, and that SC':ntiltU"rtl a n be predicted by employing a v;a,riat:ion o ( I he impression

tlffict Comrol Theory 79

management equations. The resulting sentiment guides selection of an explanatory social identity that is situationally appropri:uc and rhat filS

the event gr2mnurically. If a stigmatized behavior is involved. then the new idcntit)' ls likdy to

be stigmatized as well. For example, givcn the evcm "The youth che3ts the clerk." affect ive dcftcclion could be reduced and the C\'Cnt rendered more credible by assigning such labd s as "pusher.'' ''1nuggcr. •· or ''evil­doer" tO the pcrpcrr:uor (~ccording to :malyses based on the C:madi:m s1udy). i\hcma!ively a label could be applied 10 the object-person-e.g .. a Canadian youth accused of chc·ating a clerk might define the clerk as a "grouch, •! ' 'miser," or "stuff'cd shirt" according co afftct control tht"Ory anotlyscs.

Tradition2l sociologic:.l labeling theory focused on acquisition of neg~uivc idemities:. but from the perspective of affect control theory che labeling process is the umc regardless of whether the: new soci:1l identi­ties arc stigmatized or respected. For example. a man who uplifts another man might be! <lssignc:d the label of "pal" (analytic resuh using the Ca­nadian data). Thus. affect comrol theory sugges1s that labeling processes arc involved in achieving soci:al reg:trd :as well as in receiving social stigm:a.

PrtlposiliDtl 22. Disposicional inferences render past events more cred­ible by assigning intcractants modified identities th:.t 2rc maxim2Hy confirmed by the past events.

Dispositioual iuftrttut.s, a topic studied mainly by psychologists. :.ssign an cxpbnatory trait to a person in order to m.tke the ptrson's actions more .accountable. Affect conn ol theory's modeling of this kind of rc­idcntific:~rion suns ofT the s.ame ;as for labeling- a sentimcru about the focal person is derived so as to minimize :affective disturban ce in the key event. However, in the c.asc of a dispositional inference the inferred sen­timent do<..·s not serve as the ternpb.te for :a new identity but rather defines a rcsuh that has to be achieved by modifying the person's current identity.

Affect control theory's empirically derived amalgamation rqualions arc employed to model this process. T he amalgamation equations define the outcome impression that is produced when a person modif1cr is com­bined wich a social idenriry, as in "the wise child." \Vhen the equations are applied to dispositional inference, the outcome corresponds to the inferred scntim.cnt that would minimize affective dcRcction in the key event, the identity is the: one which the foc.al person :already has, and the equations arc solved to define the EPA proftle for an 2ppropri:..tc modifier.

Selection of d ifferent kinds of modifierS reftects different social psy­cholog.iC'31 processes. If a personality disposition is selected, then we have the usu:al kind of tr-3it inference considered b y psychologists. If :an emo-

:huser=O

80 "ACt.:INNOS ASO ll£156

1ion ttrm is: sdcrtcd for ~nulg~mation with an idnuif)'. thf'n \\'C uc dcaJ ... ing "'ith :umbuuon of a mood. If a St2tUS chancu·ristic is sdmcd (e.g .• rich, 1-ti.sJ»nic, old). 1hcn u-c h2\'C: auribution of SOCl.tl fanthy. l( a ch.ar...: acter dtKriptor is sckaro (c.. g .. <"-il. nobk), thm thcjudgmmc bcromtS a mon1 aunbt•hon.

The 2m;21lgamltion t"qUations also nt u.s<d in .tff~:ct roncrol theory co spcaf)• cntot1on.s. bu1 thrn modificn uc being sought co ckscnbc: chc: rdation bctw('cn an idC"nrity and a cr:msirnc impression r.uhcr ch.m seck ... iug a mo<lllicr to specify how a person's tnrticubr chu;tctC'ristic, ronvcrc 1he scmimcnt :attached co an identity into a diffc•rcm fund;un\'ntJ I scnci· mcnt that chc person confirms through action.

Pn•pusition 23. Disr>osition:al inferenccs arc a more llkd)• form of rdd~ntific:ation than ~ssignrncrn of new identities through labeling processes.

ltc:idC'IIli()'ing JX."'plc through the :attributiOn o( tr:lilS, 1noods, Matul!o ch:aracteristi('<, or moral chancu~r. insce2d of assigning entirely new identitto, has the cogntti\•c ad\·~uage of keeping the origir1al definition of the situation inun. Thus sim:uions promotC'd by social institutionJ' nn be m:unuu~ ~nd n~dividu.1ls' ck\1Unt conduct unders-tood simulu ... n~1)'· For e:campk. ic is cui«- (or a f~mily co dr.al with a "witbdr.Jwn d:1ug:hter" dun wnh a .. ,.ch.izuphrcnic .. :and pcr~ps eulC'r to <kaJ With a "bnnal father .. than wuh a.n "alcoholic.·· As bbtllng thcorisu ha~·e ar .. g~. c:a.sting :1 ptrson IIHO a new identity may rcqurrc- complrx confron .. t:11ions, negotbrion.s, and in~-oh·ements with authoritit'S. :and otlClt :ac· compliJhed the bbehng ma)' h1\'e unwanted r.unificuions for one's own id('tlticy. Auributions. unlike role: idmrirics, do nor have 10 be v:alidated innitutionally. thus the ~mibutions :an: mor~C easily <1pplicd and t'\'Cil "'"'' b(' employed t:acitly co undcrsund others.

Why. then, :m: la\x:ling processes ever invoked? One reuon is that reidencifi<";uio n through modifiers can extend only so far. No mt)c.Hfic~ e:an be att:~du:d to "friend" to account for :. beU~)·.ll : only bbcling with an identity like "traitor" yields an C\'Cnc in which the actor is properly' confirmed through br:tr:aying others.

l~·opr,sitiml 24. Obscn·crs forgo rc.l.ssessmcncs of an actor's dur.actc:r :aftC'r disconfirming events if the person's emorion displays :1rc appro-­pnate to the person's conduct.

Suppose .1 prn.on in ~~ honorable situ:nioruJ idcncity mgJgn an an awfi1IJct, thcn:by gcmracing a very negath'C impression ofhimstlf. By thC' em01100 pnooplc, his :accion should gn.rr.nc a n~g~ti\'C cmonon such

Aff«t Cotrtml Tlrrory 81

u humlliarion, nmum. feu. or ugc (whiche\•er is mos1 appropriate). If hr dOd display an appropriuc n~:ach·e emotion. then there IS no reuon to suppose 1hu he is mainuining an identity ditTemu from th~ one origi­nally supposnl. Thus 1hC' inocknt a.nnot be undcntood bctlC'r by usign ... ing him 2 new idcmhy. and obsc:n-ers tu~·e to deal with the :~~fTeah·e disruption in some other "oay-by implementing thdr own sancttonang C\"cnts or by reidentifying a.nothcr intrracum in the: event.

Simibrly, if a person with a mc:nU.I role pu(orms hcroinlly, chen he should feel pride :and dation. :~nd l(hc: dispbys such emotions then there is no reason 10 suppose that he is other than wh;at he is supposed to be. It would be a diJplay of c.&hn humility ch:ar would suggest he h<'d been misidentified and might be ea.St as a "hero.·· because only :a fund:uncu ... ully very good :md very potent pe-rson could be calm and modes• after heroism.

Oi5play.s of emotlon during deviam episodes (or \\'hen .such episode$ ue relived in d1scour$e) reveal what idcncities the lnu:ncc:tnls are trying 10 maintain, 2nd the~by obsen·ers can deduce whether cheir identifia .. tions of the intc:nctants require revision or not. Moreover. chrough sueh displays of emotion C:-'ch of us c1n gain some concrol O\•er how others will view w .. "(Wir dispb)' ncga.tivc emotion whm rt\'Clling our shon· comings to ochers. Such emotions often :are pbyro co :and for an auditnec to :authe:ntiClte idaniucs l.Od to nUtigur the cfi'«U of neg~ti\'C' inform.J· rion that is rcvnlW through drcumsbntt or sclf~isclosure" (Smith· Lovin 1990: 250).

Dn~rlopmmt of thr 17r<ory

This is a fiuing stopping point for our presentation of aff«"t control th('Of)' bcc:3u.sc the laJt proposition t'pitomizcs the theory. Soci2l identity, soci2l conduct, 2nd affect imcnwlnc in symbolic represrntations of social inttr:&ccion, :and 10gcther they connicutc a control system th31 impinges on many iuues of sociological signiJicance. Now we turn to some f.'lctors I hat were: involved in devdopmem of this thC"ory. Firs1 we: If)' to (at hom some of the idemific currents llutt h:avr fed cohercm concepmal grow1h of :afrca (Ontrol theory. Thm \\'l" describe :and :.naly7.c the colbboracivc production syuem th2.t wa.s the: medium for research regarding 1he theory.

Ctl~t~tptulll Exp.tnsU,,.

Affect comrol theory origitutrd in stud~ of the a..fTcah·c--rr,anion principiC", which dC'K'ribts how people rcs·pond co evaus .. Then the afT«t

82 MA CKINNON AND tii!ISB

control principle was :~ddcd ro explain how people crc:uc events. Then the: reconstruction principle was brought in to dcfmc how people reinter­pret past events. Next chc conceptualiz.aciou of events w;as expanded to incorponte settings ~nd to dc.-1 with puticip:mts who are ch.tr.tctcrizcd by modified identities. Then the emotion principle was :~ddc:d, suggest­ing how affect control prOC\."S.SCS arc ex-per ienced and helping to account for intc:rsubjcctivity among intcnct:.ants. LJ.ter the emotion principle and reCOilSiruCiion principle together led to the idc:a of emotion displays in­fluencing labeling prOC\.':SSC$. Each development in this progression of elaborations was intcgully related to prior developments, nnd equations representing the v.1rious principles synchronize ne;u.ly together.

Elaborations. The coherence of" the chcory :arises partly because em­pirical researd1 on impression formation applied the s:unc tools repeat­edly. Measurements alwa)'S were nude with che ~mantic differential, prediction cqu::uions always were obtained by prt..-dicting contextualized l'neanings from mc:mings assessed in isolation, and comcxtual structure always w;11s m~nipubtcd in terms of a linguistic cue frame. In fact. some theoretical expansions resulted f"rom straightf"orward casc- f"rame elabo­rations: this is the \v.l)' the modd \vas expanded beyond simple ac-tor­behavior-object events to events within specified settings, ~nd it is the way that the cheory w·.as cxp.:~ndt.-d so that actors and objt."Ct-pcrsons can be characterized in terms of identlrie!i alone or in terms of modifier­identity combinations. The 10ols for obtaining cmpiricall)' grounded im­pression formation cqu:~tions continue to be productive. For example, :u the time of writing this cs~y. equations were bdng obtained to predict impressions produced by self-directed actions using the fnmc -.aor­behavior-self(Briu and Heise: 1992); and research on cross-cultural com­parability o( cqu:uions was under way in Canada and J~pan.

'11tc theory's coherence also arist-s ~a usc some S)'Stent \.."qW.tions \\'ere derived mathcm:arically. For example, the impre-ssion management ~ua­tious were derived from the empirical impression formation equations, in conjunction with the chcorctk~l ide~ that people try to confimt fun­damental sentiments: and ;ltlribution :.tnd crnotion t."quations were dt."­rivcd from the cmpiriol amalgarnarion «JUations for predicting how impressions arise from combinations of a modifier and an identity. Mathcnu.tial clabor.ations of thi.s sort sometimes were :m integr31 step in SC";uching for an a.ffect control tht.'Ory interpretation of" previously re­ported results regarding some compelling .social psycho logical issue. Thus, the derivation of the oonstnaction equations f"rom reaction cqua­dons was driven by a desire to account fo r normative ac.:tions associ:ued with in$ lieu donal roles: and chc integration of emotion and impression

A.ffut Cotltrol T/Jc-ory 83

managemem equations (Heise J989J) chat underlie$ Proposition 24 "',._:.as stimulated by 2 stud)' showing that people apprC'ciate pt"'ple who emote ncgati\'Ciy over their own dt.•viant behavior.

Expansions chrough deriv:uions -also :.arose as researchers explored cqu:uion.s mathernaricall)•. For ex:unple, cqu:uions for rcconsmtcting events by selecting 2 new actor or object identity were obtained as 2

rnathem:uical vuiant of the equations fu, constructing events by select­ing :a bcha\'ior. Equation .. c; to predict attributions :md emotions became evident when the amalgamation equations were m:mipul:ued algebra­ically so th:.at modifiers were turnt.·d iruo a predicted <1uanticy rathn than being <me of the p redictOrs.

M3thematit."-al analyses must be tied to subst:uuivc concerns in order to constitute tht."'rctical :advance. For example, the reconstruction equa­tions became rcm::erbble only when they were interpreted in terms of bbcling theory and articulated with rcse.uch on deviance. Similarly, the amalgamation equations were solved for moc.iifit i'S soon ~ftcr being ob· uined, but a rich interpretacion of the results rcqnircd :. dcc~1de of work to connect the equations with psychological ami but ion theo ry and with the g rowing bod)• of work on the sociology of emotions. Me.anwhilr. o ther derivations led nowhere fruitful. For example, mathematical deri­\'2tions specified. how :111 event could be rec<m!itructed by redefining chc setting . and simulations using the: solution yielded results such as: a child punished by his puents might rcinterprtt his home as a prison. While people do say such things as "This plac.'e is like a prison," the.· prediction of metaphor docs not seem connected in any useful way with current sociolog.k.ll concerns. ln gcJH:r:~l. a math~:matica.l derivation a.ssun."S a high level of concepcu2l coherence. but it at:quires utility only when mtnsl:ued into contemporary thcoretit;<ll constructs :and anicubtcd. with prominent issues in the di:iciplinc.

S)'mhtus. AfTect control theory :~ddrc."SSC.S a b ro:.d range of phc.._ nomc.'1t:a, :md consequently it competes with a hrgc number of other theori~ dealing with those same phenomena. for ex.unplc. in psychol­ogy there arc alternative formulations of impre-uion (ormation, of iden­tity maintenanct.·, and of the mind as:. controJ system. In sociology there "re alten1arive formul::uion .. ~ regarding idcmiry. role behavior and the scr ci:~l basis of emotions. In some cases the competing theories make v irtu-211)· the same claims a.~ does affect control theory {e.g .• Sw:tnn and Hill's 11982) theory or identity maintenance), so the competing thcori<."S. and the work chey induce. arc ciled as lending support to :affect concrol theory. In mher c:.st.-s (e.g . • Anderson's (198 1J appro:ach to impression formation) the compt.'ting thc.:ory oils for certain refinements lhat affect

84 MAC K IN!'o:ON ANO UIHSF.

control thc(lry d~"S nor providt.'. and in this c.asc we continue working at our ch osen lc.-vcl of precision, ~ccepting th<tt uhim;:~cdy our models might bt.· supl'rSl'dcd by more p rl·cisc om.'S. In still o ther c~scs the competing theory is incorporated as an auxiliary to affect control theory- e.g .. f-a .. r..ro :mli SkvorNz's (1984) approach to role analysis is adopted more or less inuct wilhin our sut'"·nu:nt of cogniti\'e constuims; ;md Stryker~ (1980) du:-ory of self and idemity has h("<:n incorpoutc.'Cl into some of affect control tlu:ory's ionnulation.s rc:garding situational definitions·. Wagner and Berger's (1985: 709) contention that ''proponents of cac~ choory d:~.im the other i.s wrong'• may be com.•ct M)mctinu:s. but re­searchers somcrimcs synthesize altcmativt conceptio ns with their own.

We can surmise some: conditions that contribute to synthesis. First:, there must be :a discordance within the home chC'Ory that canno t be (ixed from within. Here ::m: lhrt.:c cx:amples frona :affect oand control theory.

1. Computer simul:uions revealed that affect contro l theory is able to predict norm:.civc bchoaviors for particular role rd:uionships. but the predictions SOt'llctiancs arc marn.•d by foolish outcomes like .. T he doctor b:tptizt<l the patient." This pre:dictiou a n nOt be fixt.-d from within b~ c:msc it is expressively cor;rcct: the problem is that baptizing is not a k·gitim:~~tc cxp1z1sion of the doctor role. \Tie incorporated projection g r:ammar from sem:uuics into the oognitivc component of alfcct control tht"'r)' in o rdc:r to justify :a principled elimination of such predictions from results.

2. Affect ctlntrol theory gcncr:att'S pbusiblc s:mctioning scquencc.-s in response to deviance, b ut otherwise simulated sequences of imcuctior based on :affect cont:rol theory b ck instrumental directionality. T hat i~ . whiJc- an amJ)'St generally can construct an instrumental seque-nce frorp chr: predicccd bch:aviors th:at :ate prcsc:nted during a simul3tion. the eX­pressive rornponent of action itSelf does not o rganize events so th.u, sa~. intenct:.ms first g reet c:~ch ocher. du."Jl work together. then p:trt. It is fOr this reason that the Farlro-Skvorett production S)'SI'cm approach to roles is incorporated imo the cognhive component of affect control theory: b productioz\ syscem rnodc:l otTers a principled basis for seleCting amo1~ the cxprc:ssivt.·ly equivalent ::~.ctions that arc possible :at each st;:.gc of. ' inccucdon in order to pr04.iucc a fmlctional sequence of 2crion.

3 . AfTeet control theory proposes th:n people conduct themselves s:o as co protect semimems. and this homeost:adc appro:ach powerfully e4~ plains norrn:advc :tction while :also explaining variations in normative bc;.l h ;wior by :allowing chat cultures and subculntrcs inculc.uc v;ary ing senti­menu. However. afTccc control theory does not add ress the issue ofhoiv sentiments form and get changed and diverge in differen t groups. anei for this casl the houH."'StJtic formulacion :actually is obstructive, sin~e

A.flut Camrol Th.:ory 85

homt-ostasis focuses on confluence nth<.:r th:m diver·g:<.:llCe. Thus it ap· pe:ars that an :uJcquatc socilliz.-u ion thoorr will have U> he adopted fro m outside and symhc.".Sized with :~ffc:ct control the<>ry.

In our efforts to expand :.flCct control theory through synthc:scs with o ther work on social intc:raccion. we f:~,·orcd external theorie-s that (1) dcsnib~ phenomena in a succinet and compdling manner and (2) share certain abst·ract understandings with affcct concrol chcory. T hcorctic:al power ls the rc:ason we h;ave tumcd so often to linguistics, l social science th:u is far :'ld~nced 0\'Cr Other social sciences in e0¢ctivdy modeling qualitative aspectS ofhumoan lCtion. l11corctic;al power also led us to pre­fer produccio z, syscem models ovc..•r the script approach to cxpbining in~ scnuncntal episodes of social intcnccion: :a production system modcJ is gc:n<:rarh'e ~nd c.1n :account fo r numerous social episode-s, w here:as :.1

script ls static and can account only fo r sequences that have been stOrl-d in a d~tab:asc. Similar!)'. classic thc<>ry o n attitude formation and ch:ange seems to us less powerful chan opcnnt tlu.'Ury's g.cner.aliz:~~tions about how cvem contin gencies inftuence dispositions. and so our current indi· narion is to employ opcr:mt theory in order to de\'clop a sodaliurion component for 10Cct contro l theory.

AIJ of the: mentioned theories add ition lily sh:tre :a kcr focus with 011fTcct control theory in that chcr emphasize the event :'IS the b:asic unit of social :analysis. T hus it is rc:btivcly C'1S)' to mo\'C back :and forth bctwt-cn :~~ffect control theory :llld the ahem:nc theories and sec where prcdkdons arc the same or different or cornplcmt-nt:ary. Additionally our intert"St is kindled by theories that interp ret structure as a combinatoric ordering of c:ntiti~s in whic.h association modifies propcrtit'S of the entities while the combination itself operates a.s :a new cntit)' in other combirurions. Such parallelism with :aftCct control thc..'Ory in the mcaning of structure inspires efforts tO rr-,msl:ne dynamic processes in the ocher thc:Or)' into the dy­n;unic p rocc.-sses of :affect comroltheory for pmposes of compari.son and linking.

Syntheses with other theorics cxp~ndcd afli:ct con tro l chrory in :a d ifferen t way than nuthemati<:ll elaborations did. Whereas intcrprctc:d m:athcnutiol elaborations expanded the scope of the theory. synthesis '"'i1h other theories k t constnims on theoretical principles by acknowl­edging boundaries bctw((."Jl ahern:'ltive modes of explanation. In gt•ncral, if :a symhcsis is successful, the boundaries becom<.· sr:.mlcss in the sense that both th t.-"'ries operate tosethcr. one ukius over w here the mhcr le:avt'S off and each theory perme:uing d1c other. \Ve c:an cite the union of :'lflCcc control theory with production system theory as ;an example of this. even though the synthesis is far from complete: production system models pick up ,.,..here the :'lfTect control modd fa lters and show how

86 MAC t.:INNON AND II I!ISE

function:ality :arises in social interaction; me-anwhile, lite affect control model picks up where the popul:uion system model falters and shows th.:u choices ue made among option;~) :actions in order co m-aintain c.:ul­ttlf31 meani11gs :and sod,:&l rebtionships .

Tltr Rruatth Progromt

We now sus-pend focusing o n the.· substantive concerns of :affect comrol theory in order to analyze the dcvdopmc-nt of social theory as the out­come of a coll;abor3tivc: production system . In this exercise o ur focus is on the professional and sciemific events tlut were the medium for devel­oping :all"ec:t c.'Ontrol theory. and the an1lytic product is an event structure model that accounts for those cvrnts.

Event structure analysis (Heise 1989b) adapcs production S)'Stcm h:-cJt .. nology (N ewell and Simon 1972: Far.uo and Skvoretz,. this volume} to the problem or documcming the underlying logic of C\'Cnt sequences through t.lualic:nive models that n n be \'iewed as gnmmus or action. The method's application to cthnognphic d:na is discussed by Co~ro :md Heise ( 1990): its usc for content :mlllysis of written texts is illustr:ncd by Heise (1988) and Heise and Lewis (1988): :md its usc in studying ca· rcers is exemplified in 1-ldsc (1990).

The d:tu for the :uulysis w~re :u.s~mblcd :as follows. An initl:tl set of time-ordered evcms rdating to the affccc control thc..-ory (ACT) research progr:.m wa,s obtained from vitae. from rcpor1s and publications, and from fiJcs. l11is produced a sequence of career cw-nts (degrees, cmplO)' .. menl$. publicarions. cxrcrn:tl fundings. cdimrships) for che key research· crs that w:as supplemented by addit1g events that seemed co be critical parts o f the rcsc:uch process. For example, bc-twc.."Cn funding cvcncs and public:uion events various resc-:arch events were included-like coJJcccing data, colbting d:ua. arul)'ting data, esrimating equations, :md so on­and positioned in sequence by searching falcs when possible, by remi· niscing Otherwise. Within·universlty fundings. publication rejections. and grant dcni:als <1lso \\tcre added. After rhe initial list had been compiled by 1-feisc. lynn Smith·lovin and Neil M:1cKinnon examined rhc listing and provided corrections and expans-ions related to their own participa­tion in the rest.· arch progr:am. This procedure r~ultcd in 42 distinc:t types of C\'cnts that rcpeat<.-d at different times and with 16 different researd1ers tO yield a time-o rdered list of 29S e-vents related to lhc devdopmcnt or :.fTect control theory from the year 1961 through 1988.

We fo rgo fun her discussion of me~hods and prO«durcs involved in che event stnaCI'Ure anal)•Sis of the ACT n 'Search prog ram since that as­peer of the work has been covered in detail elscwhcr(' (Heise 1991).

=PA64&dq="Affect +c ...

A.Jfttt Co11trol TIINry 87

Table I specifics the modd verb2lly. The token in che left column is used as a marker in the logical diag r:mt (Figure 1): br:rckctcd tokens rep.. resent publication events and corrt-spond to shadrd labels in thr di:tgnm. Ernries in the St.'COnd column ofT able I de fmc the 42 cvems that occurred in chc ACT rcsca.rch program. A ccrsc phrasing in boldfa~ is included for m <tking trxtual references. and full cxpbnatlons follow in rom1n type. The right column of Table I idcmifics direct relations of each event with other C\.'Cn t-s. Events duractcrizcd as "required" ~rc th~ prerequi· sites of the focal C\'ent. The focal event itself is a prerequisite for the events it ' ' tna)' le-ad co." Appearance of a boldface and means th~t aU or a foc-a l C"vcnc's- prerequisites muse otc-ur bd ore the focal event c.an occur~ a boldface or indicates chat occurrence of any one prctcquisicc: is ade· qu:ue. Event sequences arc constr-ained by the logic:~l dependencies im .. plied in the notion of prerequisite and .1lso by dynamic depletions of the ronditions th:n arc gener:ued by prerequisite evcm s. Event ronsequc-nccs do no t deplete the foe.1 l event unless the word depletes in boldface fol­lows the name of the consequence. The focal event has to be depleted by 2 con$4.-qucnce before the focal event can rcp~1 unless the word repeats appears in boldface, in which c:ase an intervening depletion is nOt re­quired. A focal event docs not act as a prerequisite fo r any of its own prerequisites unless the word commutes appears in bold(.1c:e. in which ase che foeti event is a prerequisite for one of its prerequisites Jfter an initl:1l priming cycle.

The diag r:am in Figure 1 presents :a g raphic rcprc.-scntation of the ovcr­all log,ic.t1 stmcturc that is implicit in Table I. The to pmost entry, ACT .. research, namt."S the model, :.1nd below that t'3Ch event is reprcsenu.-d b)' a token. as usigned in Table I. Italicized tokens arc events that h:wc d isjuncci,·c rather than co•Uunctive pren:quisit<.":S. Shaded tokens arc pub­lication events.

The events in the tier immedi:ucly below the topmost entry have no prercquisiccs specified in the modeL T he events in lower tierS do havC" prerequisites that can be identified by tradng lines upward. In general. a prerequjsitc of an c·vcm c.an be located by following the event's ascend­ing line straight upward to another event, o r by rollowing the :ascender until il meets a horizonu11ine and then finding the line th:u goc$ Str:tiglu up from the horizomal line tO an event. For example. Fund, Simulat. fOvcrvJ, (Meth]. IThcory). and Math-method :.11 have Read as :1 p re­requisite-; the prcr~quisite of Expert is l ocal-funding: and Analy2e has two prerequisites. Coll:ue and Utilize.

Indirect implic<nions a n be tr:actd using the diagr:uu. For example. (Simuluorl (published simul:n or results) implies Simul.tr (performed simubt:ion) which implies Read. so publi$hiug simubtor results implies

TA8U1 I

Spttifo.arion t~/thr Mt'4rlfor ACT RtJtarlh Atti11ilit1

'I>Lo Clunnftflln"" RdMJOM ............ -mo

Aaalyu ...,.l'ya..d datat..w-~ A tc"CMcbtr RcqWm ~ • ., Ml•~t4 auxffd ftlt'W mfomution from ' 'xu0ot ......... llby k>d .. ,.. ....Ww •hrouch tTIMfornucioM WwJ ~,.,(de-pHI") et o( IIWUIU'(IIIfttU 01' by~ co,.,.~ :0 em , ... on ' wbMt o( nin pnt wttbovt 110ft

C..dJi<d Cft'dfitd In prof tuion. A ""' No r'C'qiUI<mtiiU wilb: .. lht W';ll~ obutntd .1 dooxtor .tt~ or modtl. ~hy lud to tw~n..,./ •"" U4hn ptO~.OOJI ( 'n:dm tW • hik ,.,.,;,,.,.,, )'l1lwJ Jttvl•r. Uf mfW"rrl noc tnvolwd tn tM r<"K.tt<h ~· pt ogr;lm.

Collie• coi.Jat+cl d•ca. A rc$CJ.r<fla orp• No ~~o~irt"Jnc"'\U wh hln tht nflC'd 1hr MtmuJi \l~d h) obuin model. May kad IO IIJMI)'Utl J.II.J'•

n\t'UUftmcn tJ from rtspondn us.. ~r Of N~(I'/WitJ t~ti .... u. CJn ,. .. urg.mJtC'd ~nd \'trifttd tht:' tnt:'~- pNI wichCM.u dC'I>If1i<lfl, ~IIIC'Itlotllh lhC'IIIM'I\'n, .and thn1 pcrh1p rompmtd dc-Kriptiw: sta· m tio (C'. I',. l'lk'Jnl) thu ('l)uld be the' bnk far f11nhC'f o~nai)'S(S..

Fond ecwurlbutt'd (undiog. A t('o- lkquirn rtH. M •)' k;ld to,...,~~. ~.ud~ tmployrd rc-notul fun!h '"'J.tiA.$1' Mlf'tlfll'f,....Nitl (d .. to rw("f ~rm anw1tits. pieces) or MH~JUtJ rtJfNWJtn (d ...

ple-tft). Can f~t \loithout --· ·~ 4"0ftti'M1f'd """'th ,..blit&rt- A R.tq.irn mtf/WJ "" fWC;HtW ~ f'C'M'Utkf ~' •-n..tcn CQitoo mntW 1«__.. May .td eo,.,... tract ~ dw .1 pcbliibu lidW tENlW (d<plc<n) 0< oo WOiidd IC"Upt I \!look~ ~df"r" for pttlllntiOa..

O.oHd dn.IM (wMiac . A tdc:u daa ""' lkquun MfWJiit'JJ-rltlfl C... r~ tt~,·aJ a ltft« (rom .an attnul pnc wtelw.lo' ckpln..,_, 1\.ndu.c .Jg<'I'KY 1ft wbtcll the 'InK')' dtdtMd thor opponuud:y to ~uppcKt propoK'd rn¢lfCh ICti Y11tb,

Rd'-..d d~lf'd monoa.nph publica- Comn1utH whll 1t~&.ti1tnl , . elon, A rnurdtC't r«'C'i~ a kt:- m lilt IIIIM.'I;frJ,A- itt only t ('o-

IC"r (rom .a "1blhbcr in which 11'11:' quirt-nl('ll(, (An mirial , ubmh.,ioel )"lbiMw:r d«:litlf'd lht- oppomt- pt'rmiu: a tknill of pultllntlon: If nity 10 publish a book nunusaipt dn1i.al o( J!Ubbe,nkm OCC~IIt, h tC'J'IC)fling rt'M'UCh .ICth-itiN, dC'pktn d1C' •ubmkdon prrmil-

ting arMHhrr t~o~bmlnJon; ;lnochtr .submission dC'plet•t the' I"' tJt... nUJ of fubliatialll, .o th" dnu;al o ( publiorion might happm .again.)

Edit f'CIJtf'd jou:mal '"'"'· A * R.tquircs utn.W 4\"t~Mt. ~by M'.lr<bn ~ W1th tbc-of6- k:Jd IO ~-4 f'liftJ ..... (1 C , I ruJ fdlt« o(, ~ llld 'JI«UI IJIW of J JOWNJ MU)' be' ~ plool..llto<W ~""' ,..w..h<d ............ ly ........ ovn OIIC' l)wt ottht ~ for itfd book.) Clft ~~ WllltouJ:

'"" ,...,)*< o(~ J topic" d<pkQoo. or ' rnocutb PfO(CPID..

=PA64&dq="Affect+c ...

TABlE 1

(tfl'ftli"~'nl)

E.dmat• ftlimatc4 tqt.U~docu. A ""' kjfC'hn co.crctlftd ~ f'O"U)'Jk o( rd.ruom btt:..-rnt YUJOII~ fiiC';lMt:fftlllmU. by t'MimM-11'1 fqQl.QOIII p.u-amrt.tn .n "~ nwnc-..1 v.al~~n d"-cJi tu UKic:al »t.ll)'W" of .a umpk o( masUR'>o mmb. Sook colt. don of dKa it ptnunW\1 co bf: P<'rt of coqwrion n ritrurion.

Loe.J,fundlntt fundf'd lonll, . A roc-uchn ~~ triVC'd fund~ .Himin" ttffd within 1 unlwrthy co fret .1 ttkn t hct (rom rntllolllC'Uti\~ at tivittd llltC' lt;l<ltinf' or tO buy t«Urt h nu tc• riJb and f(t\-l«-1.

Fund.d

Talk

rundt d ut.,naJiy, A mt"ar<btt rffl'ivtd f\I IMI' from 1 MJIUt« bc-­yottd rhr rntJICbh\ O•'n ltnh'"~ u t y tO frtt CHM' or mOfC' IUC'"u th­"" from rtmUM'I.tll\~ aoivnin l1kc· c.ndu~:~r. ot to Wy m.eart'h INttNk and )('fYK'Q..

p dw·ud d..t.abaw mftiU.rP

mnttt. A rnc-&rdtn ~ ~·~ 'ut,«uYC ~~ IQ

~ tlaN!idl .. Otdn to tr'UI:C' J

cimluw~ (ThH phrum5 .tpptin to wrwy rnur<:b .u ftC'd m ACr f'("lC''lfCh.)

&-•• lnvht4 tAUt. A ro nrd w-r wu irwic~ co 'Pf'k " :~ con(n­C'I1CC' or J colbtu''" " ouu:idc of th~ ltwl rtiK"r\ own uniVf'nJty, ~nd th(' ulk l<d to .1 publlettiou .1~111h" rnt>u rh prognm by the tC"tC'Htltott or b y i0m«N1c in lht .ludictKC'. Improved 1hnul•don ayntm. A ro u rehtr nudt the OUIJI'II o f • umul•uon ,,-.trm '""' C' f't'lli,.lior by rrl'ining thC' rom pt.ncr pro­J""'· by lnmrpou 11na mOf~ ~ f'itlot'lf ~UJhi.'JtU m4J Nb, Of by rdinmc ~tot or a «bu.baJC\ luNd dmllladCNI .-y.tern. A ~ wuthn row.d a .. .,. of dtruibut-11111 a umvbt.o. f"'O"""- With d.aul!..-~ lnll iluti'UC.tM)Ot, to thaa pcoopk <0uW oprn4C' 1hc- J)'S«m on acqulbk (omp!tn~tn,

RC'quun t~~Md J.lu, IHC'UUm!

ra~ or fllhhul CM'IIhllt 4lu. ..... May kad•o ~uJj... ~.I"Pf'--N ,..J .... 'JU'tM. ~ tfi"M .. ,,_,. tiilaJ, Ul .. -..H Ntf.ml fl14''• C,.in re~r widlovt dtrkt110n

No rcquiff'mmts wi1h1n dw ntodd {lxa~ fN H <fiC'n b.IVC' an officbl:~ffili.al~>l' with J uni· \~nity), May lt ld f () ptht rffl J.JJ.J •

Nu MI'.Uifr(MOIII (dcplttts), mt.J•

1J1tt:d ,.tlpMHJ (dC!pltlf'l) , 0 1 tll~

cxpn i mflfl (d~plf1n).

Requ:ir~ Uf101'J.1t4.f-,J•'•lf· M ay kad 10 ~11f«N 4.tlllboim· mt•ltl,,.. "'"'""· Can re,..•t vo ubout dcpkoaon.

Rtquirn urnrNN.•t#lf:Jtt. Can u­Pft c widlout Mf!kiton.

Rcqu.irn P"PrwJ li"•llil.&ritwt and prDg•o:• lftt'li 1i-l4t lfM JrJitllt. C;m npea1 withCI'II dc-pl~i011,

R.cqwre. ~ ,_,.,.,.._ •noel FNJ:t.-J~ .. ,.,.,.. c... ....,.., wttboul de-pi« ..

TAI LE I TAut: I

(fm rimtt"d) (f"Miinu..-4)

T .... a...- .c ...... ~-Gdwf"'""'• T"n Ot.u-.cutfllt'Wft;l ~IIOedio C'V'Mb

joia jolood (&CU!ty. " ....,.-ob- Rcqu:iro rttnrd ~~tt or ttrn· p,.,...., prop.mm.cl drnul.J'- tf..,. R.tqlluft ~ rf""""-1 f\Uy 1:uMCI l pro(n~ pn..U.U., ,_-~ ("'w ""-'JWW'tf!Oft t•m A l'ftir~tthn PfOIUIIImcd .a k-W 10 ~~ •t""' pwwiot o( inw:lkctw.l iltcnuu. -.~ tJ rwrdy 10 dut •<~dlvW. ~ruu" .- Ofdt1 •o •mpk-.n 0. wwJ .......... ''"""' c.n , ..

.an or f~:.W:Jrdwn w1toM donor-.al .an ftM,..-dy .~ ....,.,_ pnt Wllho.t ckplrt ... •vrk •·» ~.ant btaow M OC'- INUl".al """'*" (p ... Jddicion.al <um.d bdOtc- chhr u!loOCi.ation rvla,) whdr m.1.lun' UM ol .a dlu-• '1lh cht rcK.a.rC'h ptOt:n d .) ~by b.aw t!Kh thu .a nnny of pro&. k .ad co •-ndH .,w,. j«vr''f d~rms lmn nn be- ilrt liP ~:Wly and ubbu iaJJ. C.an n ·pHt ,.~kho'" cht'CI«'tM"•I f'«'dkt.on• c-~a m1nnl dcrttt:Mm. IC'J!I.Jy.

Math•tb.ory madlflMtlud (onnaladcm. A .kqui.ra f'#V~Mtti ...... I!'Mf, (111 IDau.b&ul pulJII1h.d dattoMM teud.y. A IC'- lkqutrts ~ly:N J.lult.IJt, Can l t\('.arthn C'Ofucruccnl .a m.atM- the: ACT rnc-uth protvam, thh wucl)fr (l'lblt,h«< J dC"\Cnpuon rt'pa.t witbaul dc-pl~:t.on. mld(';l) drriv~1ion th.a1 rnn~ ~~.a'!~:1t1:f1{~~:t ~:~~~ron- o( ntethodJ .and thC' rn u1K of pro-ronntd a.u umpcions .lbout ~.a.lity c'~:nm& a d~t.lbUC' m Ofdcr 10 .ad· :rloog with «'mpinNIIy ~d du«cd Olil)' by ' tflUtCt!C'r dmj ,onu: h \uC'. tq~o~.acionJ M"ibing .a procH-s whuw prior C'Jtptritn('t ' " ('j, j. (Equ.adon_\) IUtblbhrd f'qu.t~ tlon nlima• lkquir~ tllr.,wuJ , .,.,.,ll'rO or into additional coquation.1 do.cr~ maung such tq~ou rioru provided don•. A tt'\('lrdwr puhh,bnlan wr.,.,r u u.:!th rtf'NI. Can rt•pt'U lnJC anoehC'r procc·u , inttnu,•c ror wurldns wul' lltoe tmdC' dC'rntuna how sanK pro- without dotplttioo.

(tTipitinl t'qWtiom,) May kad to ten C'lf\ be II~''C'n ll1 .llgdu.aac ior-,.tt~M•rl ~n.rJ'- J.ni!fiHk<tfJ Ot WNU mu.b non and how num.btn ~~rt mt"'"-" "'f"· C...n r~at 'tto lth- rounJ 10 lnJ \;C' t!w C"qWtWIQHCino ctUt dC'plciiOn tntC' .1nd dnnipuw o( tC'JI"Y·

M..th .. m•thod nwtMmalbtd nwthodoJosy. Rcqui..a rf"llll (i.C' ., .OmC"' 611'11 .. [Math[ publlthfd nuth ckrintioM. A R.C'qw-m -~u~~~~"'r A tnt"Udlotr CON~ .a autlw-. umy wtth ~ .-,cbtftut"<'".al .and rcwudwr pubbt.hnl 'rtpouck-. OC' ~t.:Hj.r...U• C.a" ~~~oaool dm'lrauo. dw m""ud-. ~~hkr-JNtn). M.ay lr-'11 toft~ how a ... ~..utwmmol dC'n.o ~:qnt ~ dq!kuon. the- 6riiNhoD of a tompla mttfl.. to ,...NitiW ..... Jtrl..,._, v-... 'llll')l~ .aftd ~chr o.iolocdl ,_..... [4opl .... ). rnuln .art 10 br ifti"'PfttC'd.

M..-• rnttiWtd rttpOnM'L A rco- R.tquifn ~~ t:':: Of' (Mrth) publkhf.cl mtu..odoMcJ. Arc-- ~ ud C• C'., (a~~~llunty to.tdwT~~ J-tMi w.u,. M•r .ad. •o mH~ w.arthcf pubh""rd .a rtpon dot--- • ·nh baennnC' uUtcd t·o d'C' pro-ol J"'C''s*"t mpomo co ~ number """r<~ .. ) ............. \('J'~"'lt a cmn-Al•ud fOC"vcb eNure). CJn rr-pnc W"'thou1 o(,'rfh,) -.ri.nuli pr~«d ins btwH (...,....t"), ., tf"'M" m~Mrlt J!C'Oft"durt and dntvu••a m ~ """"""'· q~don~i~ or by a computer m t~. 1llit' drplrdOM OC"Nt bf.. f.t, ilfod li1t11UtMwtt.. ord« to C'Ondu« a ~p«iftt Jn.&l)·· OUJOr the m.t:I~UIMW'hr. 1ft' U)oo

IMono*Hphl publbhtd runrch mono-. 1«-qu~tt$ ~t1tJ rnu11t. "'"*'' ~~. (In an tltpc-rimmt tlK feo- i<M·rd to a ;prd6r runcuon and ~~ •pon~ or )!d)plr abo JtC' rAC'a- or no funhtr ''.dt.~C' .tftC'r the' .cudy sraph. A lnf"I IC'h<'l rubli.Jiofd l R•~Jp4. C.a.n r~pHI "'~t110Ut

t t.lrf'd rn •w<kr m cond uce a b donc. k n)ldty ')''trnulif C"xpoutk.m ck· dtoplrdon.

{r,tific :uuly:sis. but chc stimuli Khbln11 atiWIII« .tnd OUic'Oflln in

or thN f¢'JICI''~" u c rC'..al wcul ll fC'W"JICit pt llt)UIII.

thu.l(ion; Ufhff llun priruC'd (Onrvl publblttd rtt•arch ovcnlew. Jkquun •r" (t.r .• (anulluhy prucniJIIonJ. In a dJubuc itudy, A tt'.c'.lffflott publl,hC'd .an uposi- with l.:ry Jl'lbUnUOIU rrmn .1 t C'• tit< tam piC' o(pc:opJc or llw- 11011 oudmir~a the- dai.us, acth •i· SC"U(b p tOf::Hin) , C~ ICpHI

umpk or t:limuli it t:uffit irndy 1ia, .uHI prnd utu o( a rn<>l«h wubout dt-pk tlon,

ron\ptfh<nm'C' that rbc cbu 11U)' pfOSUII'I, bC' broJ«n 11'110 dJff"CfC'fiC UlcgGrie't: (RftdH) Publl.t.htd tdhtd book. A rt- I«quim. (MfrMNI w.1" ,.,tt,;ll" (M vuiou' kin.U o( .uu.lyws.) Muthn pvbli.thed a colkt'ltOn o( (for .a book of tol•ntfJ J!lptU) or

Slmul perfornMd ..tmvladon. A n-- JU.qunn rhfL M.ay ltaJ to • • riu•' by nrioi.J• a\llthon on a f'i,k>J ~,...1 &tw (for I"C'pcvlcmg lf"'J.rcbtr nn plo)Td a $imld&oon ,,._ ,....,Mfolol J1fl4tftft (dc-plcw.l- )»fU<\Wt COf1c"' or rnc,.arch of .a ;ptri.IJ WUC' ol a p mu.l) •ytenn co mtt:r inforcurion ~bout ka.\HoC' then old .wmu.l..auom be-- prosr~.m Cal fltpftt wMo. ckpln~~on tOC'UJ UNloOiOM Md obui.t .a CO«<W obtolcu), •uw-J ~ (Slmula1or) p.ablbJM.d t:imulaccw r-('t:altt. A Jkquno~~ C." tompukT «p0t1 .tlout chl:"orC''eU .rrw-. Of ,..., ... ,_,., ,. rt"K"..ar<hrr publuhcd il.bcua" Hpftf w.dao.c clrrln~~on . ......... ._.. ........ c.... ,..,.... wichout ""'.a .. c~~~~n tnUk• "'ordn to

"'rr«- COfiUIMiftiOt'C' J ctwory•$ apriy (or pettu)'WII rna11y

IThtoryJ

E.-~ri

R<od

Reana

PhD

T ." Stll I (((mtimuJ)

C b J.tJntt ol C\'C'~M ___ ___ • .:;'::"~·-=•.::••:.;~:;;"":;;:.;~:.;'.:;"::":_ __ publi:sh~ teu a( theory. Arc- RcquirN trtltri lht«y or "''"tt' tt· sarrhcr published J rl-pon ddir... lt.Jrth rtpcrt. c~n reptoat withoot ing J throtctK~I usumption or depletion. pa-di« iou. laow dw d~im wu rx· :uninoN! cmpiriully. wlw thr rc-suhs \\Ci t, and how dtt" 1Nulu (~· vor or u n.cfct minc chc foc.ll dloC'Orctin l fotmuhtion ;a~ wdl :u Otl~r d1<'0rct-in l (ormubuon,.

publbhed t hcory fo rmulation. A r~rchcr pttblis.hed a sut<"-­mcnt ch i ming that some ;~b­SU.JCtcd JSp«U ()( rt.J.!it)' .Itt i.n· t t r rchtcd in a principled way.

nn tXpc'rimfilt. A rr..c'uc.hcr connncctcd rcll ~()('i;~l sinmions rq ucfCntmg dtUlnttwc ri rC\lm• )UUC<"f lnd l.lo)($$ot'\l $011~ .up « U

o( ~pk"s rcsponf<'f tu the dlfftr•

rnd. A rrs<nchcr comun)('d f ('­

ports and publications rcg.udins lhC<Wy. rewou ch. o r rC':SC'ltch n•ctho<b from within the rc-­.scu<~r"s OWl\ l t'SC.U(h prO(tUITt or from other f t1Clrcb progunn .

rNn• lyud prior •tudy. A rco­w.at<ll~t pcrfOt'mcd ucw :u1.1I)"K1 on mrl•t.tremcnt~ 1h1t wcrC' rol­lw<'d previou.sly (or;;~ sp«ifk >! ltd)'·

rec::eived doccoute A rn t.a td ter wu .awarded J doctoul dcgr« cctti()•ing the person as .1 compto-­tcrl l f('f('.llt C'hcr.

u·qu•n('(i (undlng. A rt:Snrd k'r sought exttrrul fundint; frarn J

~0\'ctnlflnH ~nt~K')' or from ' foundJtion o r from lin aumdt rc-. .K'atC'h in ~tilution lhrou~ t.ul> mi .. ~ion of J propO~I mulining a rnruch pi~ :md .1 budget (or ~pccdit rn.urch Jctivicio .

lttq11i ro rr.J. C1n rC'pnl wuh~ out d<-pl('tion.

ncqmrCc\ fimJN ltN"lly. M.ay lu d tO rtttnf rllhl')' (d•plet"),

No rt"quiremconu within the model. fl.h)· kad to: p~tbiiJ"rJ mrtltcJcl"t}'. ptrbluW tlltM}" jm1lll• Utt~c. pu.f.ll•luJ ftlt"rt" ~vrwirw. '"~rlcrm.llhrJ mrtlt~Joilotl"![y. prr· fom:rd 1imu&ztil1ft, or tiHttri&.lud fimdl"l· C..n rept-lt without tkpl~i.:m.

No rcqu irtturn t~ wnhin thr IJ)OJcl, MJy (('.ad 10 trJrrJ t lltMf

{deplett-.t-brc.unc o~n~lyk' for .­sp«ific test tu~ no t.uility be-. )tmd tlu t tn-1) o r .,.,..,.,, tNt.J«h J rrpctt . ltcquires wrnrr rnt.rult ,,,.,,,. Ml k Jd to tcrmwuJ wirh ~Wisl1tr, t

1J!

iuJ jct~r",;l, f 4 W i'witrJ tJIIc, join p r .. /ry. or •tiumN} m4i.u,f .

ltrquiro ttulfitd j,, l"~iilllf o r J md1't4 ktrt>urt. Ma)' lr<~d co It· 1 ~tirJ fo..Ji,g {deple-tu) o r P,tdtd rxrrnully (d~pl•tn) . C:m r•pHt widiOUI drpk tion .

Tokt n

Soil d e

Submit

UcUiao

Vi.iit

Writf:

Affi'(t Cmurol Throry 93

TAfiU I

(rt~rttilmcJ)

~lidt•d piper. A rCU'~rdwr tC'· qu~tc:d prc:plntion o( J rc:pon b)' .-nutl1cr ~hobr or JC).C,Ifl."hn.

wit)t U)UU ti<C dut the fCpt)ll

would be published in .1n tditN book.

rubmiued research mono· s.npl1, 1\ I~S•UtdlCt K il l J bo<Jl:. lc:nt;th oumts«it>t reponing theor)' 1nd reKn d1 to J publi\hcr (or pc»~ible publinnon.

tesccod th~ry. '' r~"\arrhcr u.ttd cmpirin l d uJ tn C:Xlm ir!c rhc J~· cuney o( J thl.'(ltttiol uwmp1ion "' p rtJiction. :Some colh tion ;and .anal)•sis o( dat.aue presumed w lx r u t Of toting I tht'OI)'·

ulllixed uiulng d11abuoe. A t('S('Jr<fl.rr nude u~ o( .1 rollatOO dllll.»)ot m o rder to conduct SQIIIC'

ki.cld of rdeuch.

vUitcd o rhe:r f•cult y. A 1c~ )(':ueber vi)itcd :mothtr fuult)' dmiut; :l :ubb.lri<"l l k.1'"C' frorn hn or her o""' flcuhy . wrolt" r~rc:h re-port. A r~ -.eu C"hcr JH<plrrd l tf'pon imt'f• prcting litc:r-.atutc. dtseribing ho\v Jn cxp<'rimem Wlj con.1,Ktc..l or ho\V rncJ;Surcmrnu WC'I'C' ml<k. how surh tiol or Qlhrr lcindi o ( anl.I)'M'I "'<'rf' d()onc. or how nuchoenutkal solutions were oJniVC'd.

Requires tetlf~ttrd ..,,-,, p•1bfiJhr'J (in order 10 obuin «c:d.bdity). C.-n tc•pcou without dcplrtinn.

ltcquirrs wrNt UJt.trtlt 't'Jh'f'· M a)' k.ad 10 Jr>1itd ~~~'"'.!;'"Pft publir"t1'"'1 (depletes) CH p~tbli$hr./ ml\1rtlt "'~~~r.tpiJ {dcoplf'tf'.s).

Rn1uiro lfff.ts.~rt4 rrtpilNifS, '""'

tXJttrimt"'· tt.tnaly.w1 pri!N $t1tdy. or lfliliuJ nUti"l d.JJJN$r. o\hy le~ 10 J~Vbl isbtt.t tcst of th<oory. Can re-peat w id10uc dt pktion,

No rcquir·rmtl'll$ \0.-ith!n tbr modd. M~)' lrJd to 41'1Jlly.:r4 ~ta• fw$t, C~liWfollttJ C4f~1r.lkJIJ, Of ftJUJ

throty.

lt<quui:'S j<oir~t4 j.rwt1y.

ltcqui1n: ouuly:rJ J.ct.;cf..,:ur, r JI;• lfiUttJ loftlilli¢11/ . llf( J$Nrtd TtfpO,Srt.

ttW/s(ltUti:tJ jn',..,,;f#fill'f, Of lt.ti'UI• (y:uJ prinr #l'liJy. Ml)' l~d 1() tl"­rtil'Cll J.xtilr.tlf, pe~6lisluJ C;ft'Jti<m tJiintafr$. prrblisllt'J tm 4th((!')', o r Jt~ll·ml1 1tJ 'ffU.I /11 miM~r.~plr.

b2ving re:at.i something. Progr:un (programmed simulation system) im· pli..-s Esfimatc (estimated equations) which in turn implies either Coll;att; (co11:ued d:u~) or Utilize {urilizc.-d existing d:acabasc), so in ACT r<.'S~cch progr:mnning a simularion system implies that :n an earlier point an ex­isting d"tab1se was utilized or chat raw dara were collated.

Prc>fossiomtl aaivitits. Figure l panitions into 3 part dealing with re­search " lld publication events and :mother p:m in the lower l!'ft corner mainl y consisting of professional activicies thou depend upon receiving 2

doctoral degr« or equivalent cc.·rtifit.•:uion. O ne has to tr3vecse a path

r1 I • I I .J- ~

" 1 f-

~ ~

i ~

Jl j

~ ~ I j J I

- 11l2b~b ! I I lj l

II I ~ !,

!

I I I I I I

=PA64&dq="Affect+c ...

I

lj: ~ r-~

r-t-

i !

Jil ~j_i J I l-~

laffril Cmurol TltNtf)' 95

through rt"S('uch activities in order to acqui~ a doaor~tc, and chc doc­contC' opnn opponuniua for obtaining resourca co susuu1 a rt")('nch prognm. Aside- from thtst' lnscilutionatittd linbgrs. though. rC'SC"uth aaivicies and profn~1on.ll aeti\•ttics arc esscntUIIy inckprockm. A do<>­coracc is noc :a prt"trquiJitc for any r~rch :~aivicy. and conrinuous r~ nOon of re1cuch act1vicin ~ not nsmti21 to conduet profC1s1ooal acti\•icics.

The profcss&Otlll cVC11lS' rd:.ation to resources of one ldnd or anothC'r is espcci:all)' obvious in the case of Rr-qlft'Stt'd fonJi,~~. Ftmdt'd rxttntally, and Dtnitd fimJiltg. ActiYiti4."S rd:au.-d to control of publications- EJitnl joumal iuut, Colllr.ltlfd wMr publislu•r, Soliciud paptr, P;;b/is};rd rditrd book-provide: public:uion resources for one's own research progrJm or (or cxdunge with <•tlu:r progums. The :ac<1:dcmic cvems, )Dillffl j.Jwlly, Vi.sitrd otltrr forulty, C;wr im•irrd t;llk, distribute n:scuchcrs' labor ) IHI skills ro ditTc:rcm l oc.a l 4."~ .and give rescuchers access co other rollc:agun and Jocal rcsourct"S like university computers.

04ta collruion artiv1'tits. Thn.-c cvems relate to data g:athermg: Catllt'rnl ddro:~hout nJNStlrtfHNIIS, Mr>ASllrrJ rNpc,rsN. :and R.:~n t'Xpnimmt. n1(! latu.·r two lead to a SC'rk, o( o1hcr rC"Sarch C\'<:ms, .as the rcsc.u chcr who gath· ert'd the d.au :also anal~·tH tht' data and writes .a report. Jn contra,st, Gatlt­tml J.ltitiNut' HttiJSttrt"Mmts is prC'SCTitcd u :an end product ntht-r th.an as 1

«<p towud oth<r mds. Of coo<K. a databaS< g<n<nll)' is <olbtcd and used. but in che ACf resnrch progr.am the colbtor and the g.athcrer frcoqucm ly were noc the same riC'SC'::archcr. and occ:asMm.ally rhe rolbcion occurre-d long after the Wu wac g:uhcred. This corresponds to Latour's (1987) desnipcion o( ocher Kkn«s in which one set of people coll«t nutcriods 11 ccnccrt or n.lcul;ation. and there the m:ate-rials m~y )it until other pt-ople o rg.mitt them .

The dlt:t·gnherinK .ICCivitks :.are dcmemuy in the &tnsc ch;at thtir only rc:al prtrcquisitc is some son of fimding. This is true even (or C"'''· t'r~d dlltabast' mtMurtmt"rJ• which appears in :a Jowcr cicr of fjgurc 1 :md therefore appt•ars co be contingent on m:any ocher ~ccivich.•s; in (:.ct il is dependent only 011 0b1:1ini11g ) luge :amount o ( funding. which fl'((Uirt:S professional cc:n ifi c:::uion o( someone, which is the rcuon the aC'livity app<:.rs in a IQ\\'t r tier. (A new technolog-y for ob1aining t c:mantic diffc:r­emi:al raringc with microcomputers reduced the costs or g:athcring AC1' d.arab.aSC$ so much th~t Andreu Schneider. a gndu.atc- stud<cJU at the Uni­\'crsicy of M annhdm. US<':mblcd .a luge Gc:nn1n daub.uc in bee 1989 ,.;,h only loelJ funding.)

Sinct- d:au-g-uhcring opcntions d() not r~uirc mJStCT)• of JJ whole K"rio o( ancilbry slulh. thoc .activities of1cn :are h:anded over to th~ nov­icC'S in a. rrsnrch pr-ognm (or C\'tn to compl~te outsiders in som<' kinds

96 ,\1.\CKINNON :\ND HEI$1!

of social research). A possible disadvant:tg~ ofleuing novices provide the information;al inputs is d1at e;ach dau collector may focus on something different. If the flow of information imo the program is too divcrl:t and complex to organize, then there m:1y lx :a lack of progress. as in the Cl.Sc of tuditional symbolic inteuctionism where a plethora of unique field sn1dies defies synthesis. More ''scientific .. rc:sc.arch programs pro\'idc st::md:t.rd insmuncms co d:na collectors so that the Row of information entering the system is romprchcnsiblc ::md subject to ;uulysi.s with fa­mili:n conceptS ;and methodologies. Thus, dat:t collection in the ACT rcsC<~rch progr;uu ust.':S d~t· sc.·m :antic ditTercnria.l (and-:as :mo1hcr ex· amplc-rnuc-h of the cxpt"riment:u.ion in the cxpcc:t.ttion St:Atcs rescarch prognm involvC'S application of the prognm 's st:mcbrd cxpcrimem).

Tltc di~.a.dvantagc of using ~tandardizcd d:na collection procedures­the narrowing of vision to what can be perceived through the instru­ments - seems worrisome in the social sciences. though it n rely is con­sidered :a problem in the physic:~) sciences. Perhaps this is because the physiol world is simpler th:m the socill world. Or perhaps it is because social scientists have not yet elaborated the: reality perceivable: through their instnunems to the point where th:u rea1it)' seems more compelling than the social realities provided bS• journalists. politiciJnS, sag(.'S, etc.

Druriptivt rtstardr. Some key activiti~ following dan collection­Collatt'd d41ta, U tili.uJ rx;.sring d1rtabau, AmJiyud lfatalnur-scrvc co refine the information provide."<! by the measuring instrument. These activiriC$ dirnin:ue noise from data statistical!)'. organize (Jets so they are act.-e-s­sible. and identify c\lriosities for ~pccial consideration. In the ACT rc­sc.--ardt program some o( che fact.s obtained through these ;malyses w:ar­r.uucd publication on chcjr own. For example, it was found that virtua11y no emotions arc neutral in goodness. according co colltge studc:nts in the United States (Morg:tn :md Heise 1988) and in Canada (MacKinnon and Keating 1989): that g-1y C hristians judge their homosexual identities ;~nd activitics as good. potent. :.nd lively-contrary to the opinions of other liberal Christians (Smith .. Loviu and Douglas 1992): that state policemen h:~ve a more positive view of themselves and 3lso of criminals than col­lege srudcnts do (Heise 1979).

Performed simulmitm (which is comparable to hypothesis derivation in o ther reSC'arch programs) served a related dcscripti..,e function in tHe ACT research program: simulations allowed the tcalit~· defined by in­strumems :md by theoretical principles 10 be acct.-ssed :md sco:tnned C'2Si1Y.

A program's descriptive research demonstrates the progr:un 's uti li~· co novicc.'S and omsidcrs. Another purpose, cspcdally for adv:auced r~­sc:archers. is to identify non-imuiti\'C phenomena, or phenomena th:.n are contr")' to competing thcorctic>l rc>litics, whereupon new data C>n t

I

=PA64&dq="Affect +c ...

Ajfttt C(Jntrol TI1tory 97

collected to show th:at chc hypothetical phenomena do exist. Described this way. such work has rhetorical fune«ions, as constructivists like La­tour (1987) 2nd Gergen (1985) h2ve ugued, in th2t it juscifies commit­ment of time :and other resources to the program by researchers 2nd by outsiders. Howeve-r, it is to be emphasized th:at information entering the system through the ins-truments is not controlled by the rC."Searchers (aside from their focusing on a narrow slice of the perceivable world), so rese-arch :as rhetoric docs not present a merely arbitnry world. Moreover. the dC$criptive work in :. rese:uch program provides the mau::ri:aJ.s for developing .tbnractions and rules, and scientists are at least as interested in these intcUect\lal chaHenges as they ue in influencing others.

Tittory t(JtrSlnUlio" arti•,itits. Theory construction i.s reftectcd in seven I different events.

Esti1m1ttd tquAtiotJs is a form of theory elaboration in that it leads to formul:uio1ts that are "more oomprchensh·c. more precise. more rigor­ous. or rwith] gr~tcr empiric.a.l support" (Wag11er 2nd Berger 1985: 707). Tmtd tlttory and Reanalyutl prior study function CSS1.-"ntially the same way. These forms of theoty construction, dealing with middle-level abstrac­tions, arc so d:au-driven that they hardly seem like theory construction at aU. However, that is because certain abstraction and orga1tizing pro-­cesses have b«n routinized in the form of st.nisti~l methodologies. The theoretical nature of the methodologies becomes evident when tht)' themselves arc derived, as in the ACT event Matlrrmoriud mttltodology.

Mathtm4tizrd fonnulcHion, another form of theory elaboration. better fits the usual notion of theory conscruction: abstract variables and func­tion21 relations are defined so as to mainDin (or predict) empiricaUy de ... monscrable mappings betw~n se-ts of measurements. (As Abell rt9871 observed, this oonesponds to the invention of homomorphisms.) In the ACT rese:arch program this e\'Cnt always developed from estimation of equations that in tun1 required contact with some sort of data, and there­fore this ki•td of theorizing implied dtep involvement in the rese1rch program. It is not the mathenutical work that required deep involvement (e.g . . Mathtmatiztd mttltodology r~quires nothing more than rcadlng) but rather undcrnanding the substantive phenomena that were to be formally represented.

Programmed sinmlalion system and lmprovtd Jim11latiou systtm arc :addi­riona) kinds of theoretical work. just as sutistica) methodologies routin­ize some inductive procedures, simulation systems :tre intended to sim­plify and routinize some deductive: pr~edures. For example. progum INTERACT (Heise and Lewis 1983) in the ACT research program al­lows :tn :l.ll:tlyst to sp<.-cify social imer2ction input variables in verbal tenns, whereupon the program applies equations and then employs da-

MAC ION N ON A ND H I!:I SE!

t~b~" in order to repon results in ,·erb:al tcrrn.s; thus chc simul:uion system u :a rnc-;~ns of deducing implications o( the theory ln specific cir­cunuu1l(cs (He-ise 1986). C.r(';lting :and impro,oing thC' simulltion system required VC'ry d«p invoh·cmrnt in chc ACf rcsarch prognm bcausc it dcpcnckd on cstinuting c-qunioru: and on (:amili.arity with ACT cbu •.

No n-<nt in the 1\CT history specifically accounts for the formanon o(throrC1tc:al sutemcrus like those presented in the fuse part o(this nny b«.ausc such st:atcmnHs cvoh·e uthcr th.an emerge suddenly. For cx­:ample, the ;affect control principle wu first n.atcd as .a Sp«Uiation in a 1969 puhlk.uion. the idea guided nuthemuial dcriv.uions in the c:uly 1970's, anca control became :l kry expositional device in the mid·l970"$, implications of the idea were tested in various w.ays in the late 1970's :and tuly 1980's, :and in chi$ c.·u ay the notion 6n.a_ll)• i.s claimc:d to b;t a " printil>lc:. " In gc:neul, the e\•olucionur procc.ss depend~ on findmg chat :.m :abstuct formulation c~n cic vlrious ideas together, on .-ffirming that cmpiric:al re-o~lit)' Cln be construed as proposed by the forntubtion, and chcn-wich confidence born of these successes-on adv;~.ncing the proposition .as a f-act in discouNc- with other scientist~.

J'ubll(lltic" n'mts. ACT rc-sea.rch ac:th•itic:s gt>nc:nll)' culnunatcd in public-.uion f'\'cnc~ of \'.ariou:t kinds-e.g •• PwhtisluJ J..trahast 1twdy. ,..,_ lishtJ t"4f'-'li"n Ntim4tiMI. A4blishtd mttlttJ.-Iogy. e1c. It is not'lbiC' th<~ c mmt of the publieulons h..a\~ no funhcr dirC'ct COnK"qut~ within the modd. PublicatiOns nc firul rcse.a:rch producu. 1nd they ha\"C co be uti­li7cd by outsidC"rs in order tO h..ave imp<~ct. as Latour (1987) C'mphasiz.cd. ThC' outsidm nuy be scientists in other research programs or gnduace .studmt:t who b«omc ..attnaro to panicipating u a rCSC':archcr in the p~ grant a(cer rc01ding program publications.

WrDtt rtstnrtll rtport is treated .a.s distinct from publicarion evcm.~ co allow for the cases where a researcher reported rcsulu a;peC'ific..aU)' for imcn·u•l consumption (:as in a chesis. a dissertation, or a technical report). Such documenu ofcen had professional consequences for the rcscn chcr. :and sometimes they were reworked by colleagues for joint publicu ion.

:)ubmitltil "srartlt mom~'"P'' can lead co AlblishtJ rtst~~rtlt monogrDph or co Dtttitd "''"'~>grnpl• p11blimtion. eidu:-r of which is a poMiblc final a ut­come of rC"Sc;arch activities. T he potential for being denied publiration mcan1 that a 16Clrcher's work an be in\'isible to ouuiders for lack of accru co discribut.ion channc.Ls .• and being tkd co values and g:uckccpcrs in a di.~tribution system may be as impornnc for rcsarchers as it is for the artistS that lkckcr (1982) srudied. On the other lund. submission and r~rcuon o( a nunuseripc commu(('-~ rejection primes anochn­submWion. and submissions oftm continlK u.ntil family publia.tion is achkvcd-so the Wue RU)· be: more a matter of s~ining OlCCX$S to 1 pu-

9')

ticubr audience' th;m of not being :1ble 10 n-port :J.I ;~.II. {Tllr subsy$1<m rebting )Ubmi;)IOU, rejMion. and publication of a monograph nunu· script: apphc:s m principle for publication C\·cntS in,·ol\'ing jounuls :as w·dl as monoguplu. chough 1he ACT history did not C'.a.U often for the extra dd..atl.s and so chcy are flO( rC"presaucd in thco modd (or the A kt of S1mpliot)'.)

Ocvclopmrnt of a simulation srstf:'m-a projm thlt reC'C'h·cd s.ubsun· cial in\·es.unenb o( cimr 111 che ACT rcst'uch progurn- has no ~undud publiation outlet. 111d therefore such work remains brgc:ly hwisiblt' co tl1c broader soci:al science:: community. The qu:asi·publication e\•enc. II· surd sim11faricm J)'Jirm, arose only in the lacl:' 1980's wh('tl innitution:~Jited n1c<h2nis1115 for dis tributing computer simul:uio11 systems first bc:g::~n to de\'dop.

PriMir irs

Figure I revcJI~ th:u resc:o1rch acdviti\.".S are logically structured but .1lso th:u a rc.seu t her usually has options at ~ny poim in rime. For cxo~mplt, a bcginnir,g 1'\."M"Ucher-s:.y, a gndu:ttc studt'llt-fu..s che options of rc;ad­ing. collating a d.uabuc, rc:1n1lyzing a dataset. working with an c,:hting cbt;~baJC. or obt;.aining local funding. (Obtaining prof('S.SionaJ ecrufin­tion :.lso is shown an T:ablc I. but th.at is mC"rd)' a C'Ofl\"01icnct construn used co deal ,,·nh rn~rchns who mtacd lhe ACT project after acquir· ing pro(euional C'f'C'(kntio~ls.) Examining which posslbl~ C\"C:nts Wtt"e im­plemented promptly and which \\'n'C' deferred provides i.n.iight·s mto tht­'\>2lucs and oct1e1' (.acihtacors of anion that g\aided aah•nJcs.

Evcnu from tht ACT rC'S~rch program wert' analyzed. observing which ('\'em occurred and which ~nnts were possible :u each tune point and u llying how otien .,n C'!\'C'1lt took prtted('t}Clt over other e'\'C'IIIS that Yo'C'rc: JJOssible at the same time. The e''C"lltS w.;re nuked m tc.•rms of pre• ccdcncc. :and Figure 2 shows the resuhs.

U('tt'lvtil rltltWr"tr lppc:ars :u the rop of the chart, and this m c:lllS th:.t ;unong ACT rcscJrt hcrs virtually no resc.~rdt events int<:r\'cncd rrom tl11: rime .a disscrution was completed co the rime.· the l'h. l). was received. This is p:~.rcly bc:c:au~>c of shorr institutional dday times. but it is :. m:mc:r or personal prtor-itir!. ;t,) \Yell. For c~~mplc. nC:Itl)' ~ )'C:I t p.uscd (rom ahe time'! chat Heise con1ple1c.-d his disscnnioo until he received his doctor:ate, but he .lttemptcd no rcse;arch white he was completing his Langu~ge rc­quirC"mtnt and )Upporting him.se.lf as an instructor.

Pa,6/iJJttJ 4o~rdb.ut stutly is :anOthC'T \'C'1)' high·priority n-mt. In cht ACT lu:ttory. \1 dacab.uc analysis W:t$ a (rrquent rc:sponsc tom cditotUI an for p.apcn. and thuJ dau~"C analrSC$ often wac followed by pubhation of

100

•

•

3

MA C KINNON ANO HEI S t

p.a.lb:kd tl•ul.lt« ru.Us; s.._lUtd raal.ft'~ .. ..,.ph; dtakd ~pill pub\lu.Uoa; ptllltrtd databue _.IIIIUIHIJI h:lttd ,,_,. rutMitd tl'lfm.lll)1 publl(Md .. till dnfYatJou; tslfml ltd tqu• 11oo1U; rtqt~ttlrd I'Uitdlna; ln...ed ~ lmu.tat"* I)'Sitta; pt~blbhtd tqUIIIoll n tl .. ckMu; l111provtd sJnnd•tkllt IJS"-

pn~~nmacd JIMulatlo• sy5~nr, pe...ron.rd ••••tlo.; 6t11kd tw.tlac .a111111'td rupcHUtt: rtad; coU.1td claUit wrott .....,rc) npo~ IM*tlskd tcUtt'd book; flaMe-d *-Or. pMibiMd ckofy ,. .... .. ,Jo .. : JOIIMd faculu; piabllshtd ~ om'Ykw

ftllllrtllllllt'Ct t.edlec: - ta..r..tl&ed ...... a..uo.; ... f.rud -~ ..,..: I••Ucd .. , ..

ttrUfttd 111 pn1knlnn

"• npcrl•c-nt; p~abllthfd n:sarda .,.....pa.; ru~ulyud prior ttlldy; .. tiM'MI:tlud 11:11rtlllodolo(r. 'f'b:Utd OlM CK.:IC)'"

Ftg 2. AC1 rt'k.uch C"\"'nlf3 pkHccd on .a priority nntt (to m u ro (bottom of tc-.1k) to tm (cop o( K.&k ).

=PA64&dq="Affect+c ...

1\.ffrtt CotJtrol Tlt~ory 101

results with little dday. (PubliJittJ simul"tor rtJufu aJso has fairly high pri· ority. and the reason is the ~me.)

Su&mitttJ rtJNrtlt nt4tf~rdph is a high-priority ew:nt. Once the: m.Jnu­saipt for a ntOtlOSf"ph exists (or on« ic hu been rcjca.cd by one pub­lisha). little C'IK iJ donr until the m1nuscripr is sene on co 1 publisher. This is 1 nuuer of resnrcbC'r motivation: 2 large in\·csuncm of work offers no bencfics until the ntonognph nunUS<:ript is publishe-d, so che resc:1rcher becomes single-mlnded about gercing the manuscript inco the m1il Being deniM a monoguph publication ~Jso is high priorhy- ·ch:at is. no1 much h:appens between the rimes of submission and rejection. a fac.t that mainly r<'flects npid response: times from editors.

GatlttrtJ datnb.1St mtasurrmrllls is high priority: once appropriacc fund .. ing is ;~.vJihblc, rcsc:uchcrs move npidly iruo che tield to implement plans. The precedence of this rcst"arch activiry over other acrivitics re­flects the: value placed on new data ;and also the need to spend mo11ey while it is ~tdtnini.str:advcly avJibblc •

TtsttJ thtory also is high priority, whkh is to s:o1y that few things in­terrupt anaJySCJ once dara for a possible test arc r(:lldy. This is partly bc:ausc at th.u poim the ttst i.s ~ fairly c:asy matter of statistical :uuJyKS. and also btause sricntific cuhurc imbuC$ rcsu with so much allure th:.tt tbq• take prcudmce over oth<"r <tcrivitic:s .

(We skip ow-r the luge sec of e,·enu with mc:»<knce to modtntcly high priorities, sin« thfSC constitute the reference base for judgH~g high and low.)

f>ubJishcJ ICII ttf thNty has JOmewtut low priority. Tiut probably is '" 1ccident o( ACT hisrory, since reporting of tens wu targeted (or a monograph public;acion th.at got dcbytd for years. The rd:~;th·dy low priority o( pnbUsltrd mrthNir'>logy Ius the s:ame explanuion.

UriliuJ uistl" .. ~ d.iltJ#HJsr hat somewhat low prioriry because it :~I ways wiiS pOS.Sible though people chose co do other thing$. 11u~ priority would be even lower except that this event was crucial in n.·presc-nting coopcr:t­tivc research projc-rts where one researcher collated a daub.1sc \'lnd an .. other researcher utiUtcd it. The low prio rity reftects a v:tluc :unong ACT rescu chcrs to do many othC'r th ings rather than mine old d:.u. and :also it rdlctl$ the face that funding agencies promote the crC'2tion or dacab:am while only r.arely supponing the analysis of existing dac:-a.

Sever-al cditori:al activicia:- solicittJ fHlpn. tdittd }outnAI isslit, tOHlr.uuJ with pNblislttr-havc somewhac low priorities. tn the period studac:d. ACf tC'SC'archers fOCUKd more on research dun on such editorial m:u­ctt~. rtflcrung their personal values to sorm dc-gr«, but abo rdl«cing the carl)' ca.r('(T devdopm(1lt of many ACT rCSQlchcn. Research pto­grams wuh more M"niOr resnrch~rs (including the ACT prognm u u

102 ~11\CK INNON ASD JIIHSI!

ages) Cln more e::asily impl~.:mcnt suc.:h profcssion::al opp<>nun.itic-s. so tHe acri,·irics might cake precedence more often. (Similar imcrprccacions ::atf­ply ~lso for the very low-priority event l'isite(l othtr fiuulty, which iJ{­cludcs honorific visits to rcsc:uch centers: such events might h::avc higl1~r priority among senior researchers who f.":lin 2rr:mgc the visits fairly c"stly.)

Rtm t'Xperimtttt is an cvcm •Nith vc.:ry low priorit)• in the ACT research program: il w.u possible llt"trly :all of du; t-ime yet happcncd only once in the dme period slUdied. The low priority rcllccts the tr.1ining :md early in lcrC:SIS of ACT rc:scardu:rs, and th~· priority undoubtedly would bC higher in other rcsc2rch progr3ms. The priority also will rise in the ACT progr:un sinCC' lynn Smith-Lovin began <'n extcnsh·e program of ex perf.. rnenc:uion in 1990 (e.g. , Robinson and Smith-Lovin 1992). Similar!~. rrmmly.:rd prier JWd)' had linlc appeal for ACT rt"SC3rchcrs. chough it is a valued activity :a mons other researchers.

The: vc.·ry low priority of publiJIIrd rrsrardr m(mograplt reA«lS COil·

strolints from the publishing world. Each c.ycling ofam:anuscript througf' subn1ission-rejc:ction r:IUscd the prccc.-dcncc of monograph publication to decline. Moreove-r, the dday .1fter acccpr:mce of a monograph wull :lctu1t pubJic:uion o~ lways was so long in the ACT rc:se:nch progr:un that m:~nr other rc..~arch events had a chance to intcn.,cne.

A·lmhrmatizrJ mclllodclc,gy is low priorit)', bc:ing possible \'irtually aU or the time but rardr done. This reflectS the research-oriented values dr ACT n.·se<llrchcrs to a degree. However, it also reflects the fact that only Hcisc undertook such work. so the priority was d rivcn down by others' non-involvement in the :tclivity.

Th\" priority analysis sugg\"sts ch~t a variety of faccors inRucncc rc­sc2rchcrs' choice of :~:ctivitics. The: et1hure of science puts hjgh valul! on new information :md on tests of theory. so these activities preempt other activities :~s soon as they are possible. A p~rticul:u research progr.amfs subcuhurc .1iso sets valucs concerning what kinds of work :uc interest­ing. Researchers' personal motlv:nions lt.•:.d to high priorities for ~c.'t ivi­tics that culmin:uc b rgc invesuncnts of work. And vicissitudt'S in fund­ing .:md publishing institutions nisc ;m d lower priorities of some event$.

Contlr~sio11

The event scn.cturc model prcscJHed above accounts for 298 events oc.curring over :a period of 27 years and involving 16 different people. ·n ms. it is an empirically grounded and powerful de,·icc for cxpbining how some soci:~ l psychological research proct--eds. rhough the model de­scribes the aoiviric:s of only one research program, and changes might be required tO account for happenings in o ther research progr.uns.

=PA64&dq="Affect +c ...

Affrrr Co111r11l 71•rory 103

The model envisions resc~rch as a developmental process in which occurrence of an event m2y establish necessary condilions for some ):;u er events. but no event is sufi"tcient tO generate :a cascade of later eventS. Thus, rcse.u ch might st~rt o« w ith 2 rcst:olrcher re:tding and stop there: or il may involve reading and in vestigating :a database and nothing more: analys<:S might be done :and then the rcse.~rch stopped; or perhaps publi­acion is achieved and then the pursuit is :ab;mdoned. PaSl events CTC'ate opportunities for funher events but do not guar:mtcc: them.

It therefore is quite rcm.ark2ble that social thcoriC'S arise and cumulate over long periods of time. It seems lhat research programs transform sciem ific research from an indecermin:nc: developmmt21 process into something more like a causal system. Program funding is :t factor. as it incrc.ascs the rate of research events (an dTcct that was cvidc:m in ot con­ventiQrul time series :m:alysis of the data on AC11. :md thereby n1:akes less likely the languishing of :a bter-st:lge activity beet use :~ requirt.-d e2rly-stagc activit)' has not been completed. More generally. rese:uch programs routinize meetings or research collaborators, assure the avail­ability or faci lities which 3ft' required for res~rch activitit'S. gu:t.rantee! that researchers .arc provisioned w ith depletable resources (Like dara), ;and generate intcrnu:diate products th:u :arc used by other resc2rchers within the program. Soclalizu ion into rese2rch ro les providC'S researcherS with the skills to ~rform their duties and with ideologies to susc.ain their mo­tiv3tion, .and imbues scit-ntific stand.ards that keep rcs<...arch products ac ... ccptable in the larger scientific community. Thus rcsc:~rch programs in the context or :academic soci3liudon and in$[itmionalizcd support oper­ate as productive socia1 o rganit2tions th ::t.t tn nsform cmpirie2l obscr\ra. tions, scientific Liter3ture, and funding into new forrnul:arions of reality.