Dr. Lynn Smith-Lovin & Dr. Sarah Harkness

Read about one of the theorists who developed Affect Control Theory (Dr. Smith-Lovin) and a researcher currently working with the theory (Dr. Harkness). Once you've done that, read the quick summary of Affect Control Theory to the right. There's a lot more to it than what's written here, but this will give you an introduction.

After that, head down to the reflection questions and activities below. The questions are posted here and there on the page, but you'll answer them all in the same space (the link at the bottom of the page)!

The Theorist

Dr. Lynn Smith-Lovin

“I study emotion, identity, and action. I’m interested in the basic question of how identities affect social interaction.... The experiments I do usually involve creating social situations where unusual things happen to people, then seeing how they respond behaviorally or emotionally. I observe small task group interactions to see how identities influence conversational behavior. My survey work often focuses on gender and other social positions that influence the groups and networks in which people are embedded. My simulations studies involve affect control theory, a mathematical model of how identities, actions and emotions affect one another. Now, I’m putting affect control theory together with McPherson’s ecological theory of affiliation to show how social systems, identities, and emotional experience are connected.”

(source)

The Researcher

Dr. Sarah Harkness

Sarah Harkness's work centers on the social psychology of inequality, specifically related to the study of status, morality, health stigma, and intersectionality. She is studying how status beliefs are both gendered and raced and ways we can both create and upend status beliefs. Further, she is building a research program (with Steven Hitlin) arguing that the level of inequality of a society deeply affects the moral reactions felt by its members, with those in more unequal societies experiencing more negative, sanctioning moral emotions, while those in more equal societies are more likely to feel positive, binding moral emotions. Related to health stigma, Harkness examines how stigmatization by both self and others affects interaction and the contours of stigma beliefs.

(source)

The Theory

Affect Control Theory

People want their experiences to reflect the way that they see the world, so that the "does" of human behavior matches the "should"
Emotions reflect sentiments and the degree to which those sentiments are confirmed by a given social experience.

Rarely do we sit down and consciously decide the roles we want to play and those we want from others. Rather, we have impressions based on expectations and histories that intertwine with our short-term and longer-term goals. Emotions serve as a signal for how well these impressions are being attuned to and maintained….

If a professor is interacting with a graduate student and wants to be heard as a “mentor” but the student sees her more as a “friend,” that can throw the interaction off kilter…. This may produce frustration and even anger on the part of the professor ... sensing this, the graduate student may note that he has misstepped, reevaluate the identity enactment of his professor, and re-identify her correctly.

These in-the-moment transient emotions allow [people] to sense how well the interaction is proceeding.... Emotions become trustworthy signals that guide our impressions of others and ourselves and, as such, they are “vital for social organization” (Heise, 2007, p. 57).

(source)

Reflection #1

Before we dive into the theory and the research more, take a moment to think about some of the things the theory is discussing. Is there a time when you’ve been trying to convey a particular impression and felt misinterpreted? What emotions did you experience -- were you frustrated or angry, or something else? Why do you think you felt this way?

Read the Research: Expectations & Emotions #1

Note: The text below is from a book written by Dr. Harkness and a co-author (Dr. Hitlin). This is just an excerpt, but you should have everything you need to answer the reflection questions. A few important terms you'll see used often that aren't defined here: self-sanctioning moral emotions occur when our own behaviors don’t match expectations. Other-sanctioning moral emotions occur when other people’s behaviors don’t match expectations.

With our empirical analysis, we investigate the following questions: Do moral emotion reactions vary cross-culturally, and if so, are there consistent patterns to these differences? Namely, do these reactions differ according to the structural conditions of these societies, such as their levels of inequality (as we have thus far argued), or by some other means, such as the classic East-West distinction?

As a refresher, we argue that societal levels of inequality fundamentally shift the type of moral emotion reactions its members experience and use. Members of more equal cultures tend to be more pro-social and communal, resulting in a greater use of compassionate and praising moral emotions. Conversely, members of more inequitable cultures, where the hierarchical environment is an everyday presence, will be more likely to sanction both themselves and others for moral acts. Order must be maintained and people kept in their appropriate place, while the threat of falling lower in the hierarchy and the pressure to advance is omnipresent.\

Reflection #2

Pause here to reflect on the research question being explored. Affect Control Theory says that when behavior and expectations are inconsistent, we experience emotions. Based on the previous two paragraphs, what emotions (happiness, sadness, disgust, anger) are the researchers expecting people to experience? Why do they expect these emotions to differ by country?

Read the Research: Expectations & Emotions #2

[In our sample] there are two Eastern countries (China and Japan) and three Western countries (the United States, Germany, and Canada), allowing us to test the classic cultural psychology argument that this distinction should produce divisions in moral reactions…. Supposedly, people from Eastern backgrounds have a more interdependent, collective way of perceiving and experiencing the world, while people in the West are more individualistic, with America being perhaps the epitome of a self-focused society. The primary alternative hypothesis to our focus on structural inequality would certainly involve this distinction.

Immigration levels are yet another distinguishing feature…. Many researchers have proposed that increasing immigration leads to more fracturing of a society’s citizenry. This leads to greater uncertainty when interacting with others, greater status competition, and therefore a higher prevalence of envy and scorn and their associated sanctioning moral reactions….

These countries also importantly differ in their level of inequality…. The Gini coefficient is a measure of the distribution of income for a nation’s people with 0 representing perfect equality wherein everyone makes the same income and 100 representing perfect inequality (one person in the population makes all of the income and everyone else makes none). Higher Gini coefficients indicate greater levels of inequality.

Given the important differences in the level of inequality between our five chosen countries, do they differ in their moral reactions to events? First, as displayed in Figure 9.5, more moral emotions were reported in the simulations using the German, Japanese, and Canadian Interact dictionaries, than in the United States’ and China’s. The Canadian simulations, for example, resulted in over 100 more moral emotions than in the United States and China....

Regardless of the frequency of moral emotion reactions, does the composition of these reactions differ by country? Figure 9.6, Figure 9.7, Figure 9.8, and Figure 9.9 display the proportion of each class of moral emotions in each country…. We largely avoid the question of just how moral a society is relative to another and instead ask that when an event compels a moral reaction, what type of reaction is it? Sanctioning or self-transcendent?

Hitlin, S., & Harkness, S. K. (2017). Unequal Foundations: Inequality, Morality, and Emotions Across Cultures. Oxford University Press.

Figure 9.5. Number of Moral Emotions by Country

Figure 9.6. Proportion of Self-Sanctioning Moral Emotions to Total Moral Emotions by Country

Figure 9.7. Proportion of Other-Sanctioning Moral Emotions to Total Moral Emotions by Country

Figure 9.8. Proportion of Compassionate Moral Emotions to Total Moral Emotions by Country

Figure 9.9. Proportion of Praising Moral Emotions to Total Moral Emotions by Country

Reflection #3

Were the author’s predictions (which you talked about in the last question) supported by their findings? Using the graphs provided, explain your reaction.

Reflection #4

What does it mean for a society if people experience more other-sanctioning moral emotions than self-sanctioning, compassionate, or praising moral emotions? For instance, if you were a person in that society, how would you expect other people to see you? How would this affect your life and mental health?

Google Sites

Report abuse