Loading...

Stanford Sociology Technical Reports and Working PapersTechnical Reports and Working PapersStanford University Department of Sociology UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, CHARLOTTEBetween 1961 and about 1990, many faculty members and a few graduate students at the Stanford Department of Sociology produced a steady flow of research manuscripts called Technical Reports (1961-1983) or Working Papers (1984-1990). These documents describe theoretical developments, results of empirical research, new research operations, methods for data analysis, and focused bibliographies.

This body of work defines the remarkable intellectual activity that came to be known in the discipline as “Stanford Sociology.

Writing a field report - organizing your social sciences research

Today sharing ideas and collaboration take place through the Internet and virtually everything is readily available.

In 1961, communication was paper-based and produced on a typewriter Jump to Need to order sociology laboratory report meaning - Mathematics laboratory report · Physiology How to buy sociology laboratory report harvard .

Greek letters, mathematical operators, and even brackets had to be written by hand; and “cut and paste” literally described the process of revision. Technical Reports codified knowledge at a particular time (usually, when the authors believed the work was advanced enough to show to others and solicit their comments), and were the earliest, semi-public products of research projects.

Scholars and students read Technical Reports to get the latest ideas from other research teams, and often their comments helped with further revision for publication. Many of these documents were published in professional journals and book chapters; others are parts of dissertations; and many are only available in this collection.

When a Technical Report or a Working Paper is published, inevitably there are revisions to meet reviewers’ and editors’ suggestions. Sometimes an early report contrasts predictions of more than one theory, and assesses their relative success at accounting for data from differentiating tests.

Due to space limitations and other considerations, the published version is likely to omit competing theories and focus on predictions and data from the theory of greatest interest. Sometimes authors’ ideas develop between an early report and the published version, perhaps with the help of comments from others.

Three broad groups of readers may find value in this collection. First, these documents can be read for their intrinsic interest.

While most of the ideas have been developed further over the years, the theories and ancillary ideas have stood the test of time. The documents are written accessibly so that a reader interested in, for instance, status inconsistency (TR#13), problems of interdisciplinary research (TR#57) or communication networks in organizations (WP#86-5) can find grounding and useful insights here.

Second, historians of science may use these documents to trace the history of ideas in sociology, the development and growth of the sociology program at Stanford, changing foci of theory and research in the discipline, the careers of individuals, and for other purposes. These documents paint a picture of what was meant by the term “Stanford Sociology” during these years.

Finally, sociologists wishing to strengthen and extend their understanding of the theories and topics in these documents will want to study them as other sociologists did in earlier decades. With changes in dissemination patterns for scholarship, Technical Reports and Working Papers became less important for spreading innovations.

Like all paper documents they are endangered by the fragility of paper and a shortage of physical storage space. This project preserves them for future scholars, both online and in the climate-controlled documents archives.

The preservation project would not have been possible without contributions of many individuals. Mark Granovetter, Professor and Chair of the Stanford Sociology Department, contributed space and financial support for the project.

Ridgeway, and John Meyer, all of the Stanford Department of Sociology, helped locate some of these documents and advised on their places in the program. Stanford University 1966, provided clear copies of the extremely important Technical Reports #11 and #15.

Stanford University 2013, helped with the scanning and record keeping on the project. Alison Walsh and Aaron Tran at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, provided technical support, help with the scanning, and guidance on Library requirements.

Dean Nancy Gutierrez, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, provided travel funds to facilitate this project. Annotated Listing of Technical Reports and Working PapersThe only existing list of Technical Reports and Working Papers was prepared by Professor Bernard P.

Cohen, Stanford Department of Sociology, October 23, 1989. The listing here follows numbering that document, except for Working Papers numbered 1990 and 100.

Several of the Technical Reports have been published as journal articles or book chapters. Due to reviewing and editing requirements, the published version usually represents minor or moderate changes from the Technical Report. When authorship of a TR and a publication are the same, the annotation says “published by the authors.

” When authorship or order changes from that in the TR, the authors of the published version are listed in the annotation. TR#1 introduces the concept of self-other expectations (Joseph Berger’s 1958 dissertation also includes that term, although defined slightly differently), and develops propositions about their behavioral consequences. It presents a Markov model predicting stability or change in expectation states from different behaviors.

Markov models assume that change of state (from one expectation pattern to another) depend only on the previous state and the transition probabilities. This concern became important in developing tasks for testing the theory, as seen in TRs #11 and #15.

) TR#1 ends with a note that “Research is presently under way to develop an experi­mental situation…which…will provide the type of test data required…. ” Developing that experimental design is described in Berger (2007) a.

1966) replicated and extended a finding of Miyamoto and Dornbusch (1956) with a different population in a different setting.

Self-concepts of married couples were closely linked with their spouses’ views, but even more closely linked with the spouses’ perceived views. The effects of others’ opinions on the self are dealt with later as “second-order expectations” (Moore 1985; Fisek, Berger and Moore 2002).

This theoretical paper addresses what was then called “status consistency” or “status crystallization.

” Discrepant ranks on different characteristics such as income, occupational prestige, education, race, and religion were thought to be a source of strain and a motivation to bring the ranks into line. This paper argues that rank disequilibrium (or status inconsistency) is a factor in developing right-wing attitudes.

The topic had contemporary relevance with the prominence of the John Birch Society, the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade, the Anti-U. movement, and the 1964 Republican convention held in South San Francisco. The authors develop theoretical ideas in TR #7 and outline links to political behavior.

Cohen’s list also has this TR as published with the same reference as TR #8 above. TR #9 is more abstract than TR #8, and Takagi and Whiteside, who were graduate students at the time, are not listed as authors on TR#9.

The authors develop theoretical foundation for ideas in earlier TRs and elsewhere on status consistency, focusing on effects for organizations. When disequilibrated (inconsistent) ranks of individuals and jobs become salient, organizational stability is weakened.

Conner describes development and testing of Meaning Insight and Relational Insight 1 and 2.

The tasks, which are still in use for expectation states research, were developed to test ideas in TR#1 and later theoretical developments for Conner’s dissertation. As noted with TR#1, treating expectation formation and maintenance as a Markov process requires tasks with multiple independent trials for testing predictions.

Conner determined that these tasks do not have independent trials, a problem not solved until development of Spatial Judgment in TR#15. Besides methodological issues of contemporary relevance, historical interest attaches to the ways that Conner deals with problems of deciding appropriate criteria for laboratory tasks, and for adapting statistics to assess success of the tasks at meeting desirable criteria.

This is the first statement of the theory of status characteristics and expectation states and it was published by the authors (1966).

The theory generalizes the theory of performance expectations first presented in TR#1. The theory was generalized two more times, and the present version was published by Berger, Fisek, Norman, and Zelditch (1977).

Webster and Driskell (1978) describe the development in successive formulations of this theory. Kimberly’s theory is an alternate to the theory developed in TR#7 and to other theories of status inconsistency.

Kimberly posits that individuals take their least changeable (ascribed) rank as the focal rank and compare all other ranks to it in determining consistency or inconsistency. A formalization and extension of the theory in this TR also was published by the author (1966). This TR describes how status inequality can produce similar inequality of expectation states, and how the interaction process is affected by the status generalization process. It elaborates some ideas in the model from TR#1, though with considerable additions and modifications.

Moore builds on the work of Conner (TR#11) to develop an entirely new experimental task. This task, with the important restriction that stimuli are presented in a particular order, does successfully meet the criterion of independent trials.

Each stimulus of the task developed here resembles a checkerboard with 100 rectangles. The task can be either ambiguous (it has no correct answer and it is perceived as having no correct answer) or veridical (it has a correct answer and respondents normally are able to distinguish it).

A later version, now usually called Contrast Sensitivity, uses pairs of the patterns that Moore developed here. As with TR#11, this TR discusses interesting questions of how to attain criteria for the task, and how to assess success.

The document labelled TR#15 was retrieved from Moore’s dissertation, which, according to Moore, is identical to the TR. The authors identify a structure of widely-shared, interrelated goals, including political stability, economic growth, public welfare, and economic nationalism in contemporary Mexico. They relate those goals to the contemporary structure of Mexican governments.

They also describe patterns of oligarchy, cooptation, dissent, and repression, and relate those patterns to the goal structure. This TR was published by the authors (1966) and reprinted in Horowitz et al.

The authors describe four kinds of authority rights (legitimate attempts to control others) and analyze organizational authority systems in terms of the process by which participants’ performances are evaluated. They present theoretical ideas including a prediction that certain incompatible authority systems can block participants’ ability to attain satisfactory evaluations.

That problem, in turn, causes instability of the organizational system. This TR presents the theoretical account for relations among power and prestige behaviors in small groups and performance expectation states.

It explains, among other things, the high correlations among several different behaviors and their relations to estimates of ability and choices for leadership among group members. It is the first full exposition of this theory, as well as of the now-standard analysis of interaction patterns and how they lead to expectation states and then maintain patterns of the states and of inequality.

Cohen’s intention here is to show how certain general principles of sociological theory can explain certain historical aspects of interracial behavior. Writing for a general, as distinct from a sociological, audience, Cohen analyzes effects of status and expectations in mixed-race interaction and shows how the theory can be used to overcome undesirable outcomes.

Civil Rights movements and many instances of violent repression and collective action were common news topics. This TR was published by the author in Stanford Magazine 1968.

The authors develop a theory in which consistency of ranks on position and ability affect individual satisfaction and system stability.

The mechanism is rewards associated with different patterns. For instance, when position is rewarded more than ability, a low ability individual with a high position will be satisfied; when position and ability are rewarded equally, then rank consistency will be most satisfactory.

This TR continues the author’s interest in status consistency and organizational stability. It describes a process that equilibrates ranks on different dimensions, and then expands the focus to show how equilibrating processes within an organization affect stratification across organizations.

This paper was presented at ASA meetings in 1966 and, after revisions, in 1968. After further revisions it was published by the author (1972).

The authors elaborate the theory and model presented in TR#18 on the formation and maintenance of performance expectation states in task groups, and their effects on group structure and interaction.

The main theoretical topic here is the unit evaluation process in interaction that leads to expectation formation. New predictions are tested in three-person groups and show good confirmation.

Of interest to expectation states researchers, the experiment (1) had three participants per group; (2) used continuous disagreement for 40 trials after the first two trials; (3) randomized the starting number of the slides to reduce inter-trial dependency; (4) is the first TR to use the Spatial Judgment task developed by Moore (TR#15); and (5) used near-veridical slides to control the unit evaluation process. This TR was published by the authors as the lead article in Human Relations (1969).

This TR reports a further elaboration of the exchange-based theory of status consistency and individuals’ reactions to various patterns that was presented in TR#21.

The extended theory predicts mobility and preferences for more and less differentiated task structures as outcomes of different patterns of inconsistency. Experimental test results were generally confirmatory.

The authors develop a theory of structural and interactional factors involved in processes by which evaluations from others can affect one’s self-evaluation.

The theory defines an effective “source” of evaluations, and presents balance models of the process. While many of the ideas in this TR were later developed by Webster and Sobieszek (1974), the ideas on conditions for stability of self-evaluation have not as yet been explored.

This is a revision of TR#23, focusing on the experimental tests.

It expands the discussion of conditions for stability, adding the idea of cliques that support stable self-evaluations. The authors present a theory of distributive justice, feelings that a distribution of benefits and burdens to particular individuals is right and proper. They distinguish local systems and referential structures, and the theory predicts that perceived justice obtains when relations in the local system reflect relations in the referential structure.

An expanded version of this TR was published by the authors (1972). The authors present an early description and discussion of the uses of TV systems in social science experiments. They compare two experiments, one conducted live and the other with TV, showing a few minor differences in measured outcomes, but they conclude overall that the benefits of TV designs outweigh problem of comparability.

“The Formation of Performance Expectations Based on Race and Education: A Replication. TR#29 mentions the experiment and shows some of the data from it. The work reported here was significant in the generalization of the first theory of status characteristics and expectation states (TR#12 and Berger et al. The first theory could only account for status generalization from a single characteristic; this TR reports experimental results for two status characteristics. Experimental data showed that the characteristics combined, which was incorporated in the theoretical extension to two characteristics published by Berger et al.

This TR reports results from 59 3-person discussion groups.

Groups began with no induced status or expectation differentiation. About half showed participation inequality from the first 2-minute period and half developed inequality structures after some interaction.

The initially differentiated group probably formed expectations through status generalization from salient status characteristics and the undifferentiated group probably formed expectations by the unit evaluation process during interaction. Besides its relevance for theories of expectations and status processes, the task forming the discussion—to come up with an interesting topic for subsequent groups to discuss (a “task task”)—is one of the best available for creating high task focus and collective orientation, as well as being interesting enough for college students to spend an extended period discussing it.

The author tests the idea that mobility can lead to anomie in societies where mobility is uncommon, less so in a society with greater mobility. He analyzed data from Costa Rica, Mexico and the U.

Results generally confirmed the idea, showing the importance of cultural context for the psychological consequences of mobility. It reports a second experiment investigating how two status characteristics affect expectations and power and prestige. The theoretical goal was to further compare predictions based on combining of all status information to predictions assuming a cognitive “balancing” that ignores some contradictory information.

Results again (as in TR#32) showed strong support for combining, which was incorporated in the theory extension (Berger et al. 1974), and later elaborated in the model as Assumption 4 in the general theory (Berger et al.

The author analyzed questionnaire responses from 946 students in 99 colleges to ascertain the effects in the title. College effects were much smaller than individual background factors and freshman occupational choices.

Larger colleges tended to shift occupational choices away from high status professional occupations, while small colleges had the opposite effect. The general issue under investigation is whether one’s position in a hierarchy affects how one judges other positions.

Important instances include judging occupational prestige and distributive justice. The author briefly examines the issue with occupational prestige judgments from the General Social Survey, where one measure shows considerable displacement.

The main research focuses on popularity status in a high school. Results again showed displacements of judgments by one’s own position; thus, the importance of conditioning assessments by cultural context or by referential structures.

This TR reports findings from a class project interviewing residents of San Jose, CA, on housing needs. Besides finding considerable concern and actual deprivation (e.

, more occupants than bedrooms) among lower-income residents, the interviewers also found perceived deprivation relative to what the residents considered they ought to have.

Housing problems were associated with many other factors, including neighborhood and school quality and crime rates. This reports a study of the extent of violence and disorder, drug use, vandalism and theft, and racial conflicts in high schools, and of attempts at social control. The authors analyzed two national surveys of school principals supplemented with interviews in the local area.

They concluded that while numerous problems exist, schools have dealt with them, not primarily by surveillance and punishment but rather by redefining students from “children of the school” to “citizens of the community,” thus externalizing many of the problems of disorder and control. The authors review literature on effects of status differences on interaction and formulate general principles of status generalization to explain them. Next they conduct direct tests of the explanation in an experimental study of 180 Air Force Sergeants in the standard experimental situation developed by Berger (Berger 2007).

Sergeants paired with a commissioned officer formed low self-expectations and Sergeants paired with an Airman formed high self-expectations, as predicted. The authors published this TR in the American Sociological Review (1972).

This appears to be a revision of TR#39 with the same title.

A footnote in this TR describes it as a revised and extended version of a paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Sociological Association, August, 1970, but it does not mention either TR#39 or the 1972 publication listed at TR#39. This TR was adapted from McMahon’s doctoral dissertation, written at Michigan State University. It develops a theory and model for disagreement and consensus in organizational hierarchies, and tests some derivations of the theory in three-person experimental groups.

The model has some features in common with a decision model by Camilleri, Berger, and Conner (1972). Results for 3 of 4 conditions were as predicted by the model.

The TR discusses some methodological issues of the tests, and suggests areas for further investigation, including studying the process in larger groups specifying the non-linear form of the relation between morale and participation. The authors propose a theory in which status generalization from a diffuse status characteristic such as age, race or gender can be eliminated by introducing contradictory information about a specific status characteristic such as task ability. They conducted an experimental test of the theory and found confirmation.

The conclusions here differ from results of other experiments in which all status information combined and none was eliminated (including TR#32 and TR#35), and from the aggregation function proposed in the developing theory of status characteristics and expectation states (Berger et al. Balkwell (WP 100-1 and 1991) reanalyzed this experiment and concluded that, properly classified, these data show combining, not elimination. The author describes and analyzes different sorts of problems from aggregation bias, a type of composition errors, that can result when shifting from group-level data to individual-level effects.

He develops three approaches, grouping, causal modeling, and specification error approach. The analysis shows that all approaches are satisfactory for simple cases, and the latter two are preferable (although not entirely satisfactory) for cases where ordinary methodological difficulties appear.

The authors present a theoretical analysis of relations between technology and formal organizational structures.

After critically evaluating other approaches, they propose a finer-grained analysis to examine relations between particular technologies (rather than technology in general) and particular work arrangements (rather than the structure of the whole organization). They discuss some methodological consequences that would follow from such a change, including developing different measurement techniques.

The authors describe and analyze some issues in understanding causality from panel designs.

They focus on complications that arise when multivariate panel models are measured with either random or systematic errors. The analysis is illustrated with panel from the U.

of education and economic data from 96 countries.

They conclude that new statistics, to be developed or imported from other disciplines are needed to deal with measurement error in substantive panel data. “Stochastic Models of Social Mobility: A Comparative Analysis and an Application to Job Mobility of Mexican-American Men.

This TR is the author’s full dissertation written at Michigan State University.

It is not included in this collection, but is available from University Microfilms. “Expectation States Theory: A Theoretical Research Program. This describes the state of theory development and related empirical research on status and expectation state processes. The authors describe methodological issues of panel analysis designs; in particular, autocorrelation of errors across waves.

They recommend constructing a “pooled” model of data from all waves to deal with design and estimation problems, and present results from a simulation of the behavior of alternate estimators for pooled models. “Brain Activity (CNV) as Affected by a Social Comparison Process (Status). The concern is to determine the process by which directly relevant, and inversely relevant characteristics function to affect expectation states.

Results of a four-condition experiment showed that dissimilarity alone of the relevance bond among characteristics had no effect on the generalization process. In other words, characteristics were simply combined as was shown previously for the simpler situation (TR#32 and TR#35).

This TR was published as Wagner and Berger (1982). This TR, like TR#32, TR#35, and TR#53 addresses the form of combination of status characteristics with particular interest in developing the theory of status characteristics and expectation states for multi-characteristic situations. The authors differentiate Stuart Hughes’ view of status dilemmas from Gerhard Lenski’s view of status crystallization, and they note that, due to its structural approach, Hughes’ view deals with situations that Lenski’s view would not treat as problematic.

Results showed combining of status characteristics, without evidence of either status crystallization or effects of status dilemmas.

The author develops a theory, both discursively and formally, of communication ambiguity that can result in the three situations of the title. In a dependent relationship, such as parent-child or teacher-student, an ambiguous message is likely to make prior role relationships salient, and to be interpreted in terms of those roles.

For instance, if a child does not understand a teacher’s instructions, the child is likely to fall back upon role-determined beliefs about the teacher’s general values and actions. The process results in stereotyped interactions and often, to undesirable attributions.

A different application of the theory of how role relations develop is available (Johnston 1988). Research teams may be studied as social systems organized along dimensions of status, such as rights to evaluate others and to allocate rewards. “Status consistency” is the degree to which salient statuses an individual possesses are at the same level; “status ambiguity” occurs when ranks are unknown or unclear.

Relevant dimensions of status are those both within a team and in the larger society, such as gender and ethnicity. Both status inconsistency and status ambiguity interfere with communication, and that reduces team efficiency.

The authors analyze structures and processes in multidisciplinary teams to identify factors that lead to synergistic outcomes from those that do not.

They use the analysis to describe settings most likely to produce synergistic outcomes. Generally, situations that foster interaction and exchange of ideas are most appropriate to develop synergy, but several structural and interaction factors—including bureaucratic organization of work, reward systems, status inconsistency and status ambiguity (the latter two developed in TR#57)—often make such situations unlikely or impossible.

The authors analyze different ways that problem solving groups organize structurally.

The argument applies to all groups but because of historical facts, all-male and all-female groups instantiate the situations described. Essentially, groups that organize around recognized (“legitimate”) characteristics are more effective than groups in which organizing principles are unclear or inconsistent.

While males usually organize in this way, females often use differing or ambiguous principles, and thus, are less effective. Explicit authorized designation of a leader in all-female groups should remove ambiguity in all-female groups and make their interaction patterns more similar to those in all-male groups.

The analysis and predictions were supported by research on discussion groups. Walker and Fennell (1986) refer to this research.

The authors address four sources of indeterminacy in maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) for multivariate modeling of change using panel data: censoring, caused by changes that occur after the observation period ends; small sample size; interacting censoring with sample size; and collinearity among causal variables.

They explore the issues with simulations and conclude that MLE estimates are generally efficient except when censoring is extreme, and efficiency is only slightly affected by collinearity among independent variables. Related publications include Tuma and Hannan (1979) and Tuma, Hannan, and Groeneveld (1979).

The authors report on simulations on the quality of parameter estimates of regression coefficients with lagged variables.

Results showed that the quality of estimates varied with the amount of serial error correlation and with the relative strength of effects of lagged variables. Estimates of the coefficient of an exogenous variable 2 should be very similar by maximum likelihood estimates and modified generalized least squares.

If they are not close to identical, an investigator should suspect misspecification of the model. The authors measured alpha brain wave activity from volunteers as a function of gender of experimenter and gender of volunteer. Cross-gender combinations, especially for male volunteer—female experimenter, showed different patterns than same-gender combinations.

However in an experiment using the standard design (Berger 2007), status and agreement or disagreement feedback, elicited very similar brain wave patterns for male and female participants. “Modes of Operation of Polydisciplinary Research Teams.

The author explores methodological issues in developing stochastic models for changes in quantitative variables.

The general approach here is to treat observed distributions as reflecting distributions of probabilities of different qualitative states, and to perform the stochastic modeling on the probabilities. The approach treats standard linear structural equation systems as steady state outcomes of continuous time models of change.

This TR refers to “chapters” so it may have been written for a book. Related publications include Tuma, Hannan, and Groeneveld (1979) and Tuma and Hannan (1984).

“Models of Change in Quantitative Variables, Part II: Stochastic Models.

“Models of Change in Quantitative Variables, Part III: Estimations from Panel Data. “Hemispheric Lateralization and Social Comparison. The authors review sociological literature describing different perspectives and uses of studies of change in discrete (qualitative) and quantitative outcomes. They show that, contrary to many injunctions, temporal analysis is not always superior to cross-sectional analysis for studying change, particularly for two-wave panel measures.

The main factor is whether confounding influences vary more over time than over measured outcomes. Modeling change processes and event history methods use more of the data and provide a better picture of change using temporal data.

Hannan, Nancy Brandon Tuma, and Barbara Warsavage. “The Impact of Measurement Error in the Analysis of Log-linear Rate Models: Monte Carlo Findings. The authors compare alternative procedures for estimating parameters of event-history models: ordinary least squares, Kaplan-Meier least squares, maximum likelihood, and partial likelihood. They report results of simulations comparing maximum likelihood and partial likelihood estimators for small samples in terms of several potential sources of error.

A related paper is Tuma, Hannan, and Groeneveld (1979). Humphreys, a logician, and Berger, a sociological theorist, derive five theorems from the theory in Berger et al. Some of the theorems formally account for the link of status inequality to inequality in group structure and task behavior. Others relate to ways that group structures preserve or reduce inequality.

The authors apply event history analysis to records on 90 countries from 1950-1975 to test hypotheses consistent with world systems and modernization hypotheses. The hypotheses predict factors associated with political change from/to one-party and multi-party governments.

Modernization hypotheses predict that changes making a society more modern (that is, more like European societies) increase the chances for multi-party democratic governments. World systems hypotheses predict that governments are more affected by a country’s place in the world economic system than by internal changes.

Results here show small effects of modernizing on government form, and event history methods show a complex relationship between GNP per capita and form of government. “When Can Interdependence in a Dynamic System of Qualitative Variables be Ignored?”a.

“Theoretical and Experimental Investigation of the Conditions under Which Group Effects are Greater than the Aggregation of Individual Effects.

“Capital Cities in the American Urban System: The Impact of State Expansion.

The authors review theoretical and empirical work related to the theory of status characteristics and expectation states to this date. Political decisions at all stages, from community to country, occur only after a process of agenda setting.

Nondecisions result from failing to raise an issue to the appropriate decision-making body, and occur through predecision political influences. These authors formally explicate a discursive theory of nondecisions, derive hypotheses, and test them in experimental settings.

“Sex Differences in Recognition and Preference Accuracy under Three Exposure Time Conditions. “Sex Differences in Recognition and Preference Accuracy under Three Exposure Time Conditions.

“The Transfer of Status Expectations: A Theoretical Extension. Related papers include Berger, Fisek, and Norman (1989) and Markovsky, Smith, and Berger (1984).

“The Formation of Reward Expectations in Status Situations. The theoretical development distinguishes three objects of legitimation, of persons, of positions, and of actions; and three types of legitimacy, propriety, endorsement, and authorization.

Propriety is normative support of power, endorsement is group support, and authorization is support of an actor higher in the organizational structure. They conducted an experiment varying levels of endorsement.

Results showed strong effects of endorsement on compliance. The authors explore revolutionary coalition formation in equitable situations.

They posited that actors would form such coalitions if the equitable relations were threatened. Results of an experimental test of that idea were not confirmatory.

The authors attributed the outcomes to an unintended factor of inferred authorization. The authors investigated situations in which appropriate behavior depends on information that is not consciously processed, and they attempted to influence the brain hemisphere which is most active when using such information. First, task-appropriate hemispheric activation could be conditioned by instructions; and second, activation of the appropriate hemisphere would improve accuracy scores. Brain wave activation data confirmed that instructions could successfully trigger activation of either the right or the left hemisphere, and appropriate activation improved recall accuracy.

They also found gender differences in responses to two parallel sets of stimulus slides. This TR was published by Barchas and Perlaki (1983) , D.

“Indices of Hemispheric Lateralization” A Methodological Analysis.

The authors describe and evaluate several indices of brain hemisphere lateralization.

The methods use different data, including response accuracy, reaction times, and EEG asymmetry. They describe an index-free ranking procedure that uses two or more kinds of data and that makes few assumptions and does not impose a numerical scale.

EEG asymmetry data entails measurement decisions and scaling assumptions, which the authors discuss in some detail. The authors investigate transfer of a status intervention—introducing a specific status characteristic to reduce expectation effects of a diffuse status characteristic—across tasks and interactants.

Experimental results showed (1) the intervention was effective in reducing unwanted status generalization; (2) effects of the intervention transferred to a new situation; (3) the transferred expectations were weaker than they were in the original group. These effects are as predicted from the 1977 theory of status characteristics and expectation states.

However this experiment gives essential information on how to construct a status graph of the situation. The authors claim that theoretical growth is often obscured by a narrow definition of “growth,” one that emphasizes only empirical support for a unit theory.

They introduce the idea of theoretical research programs, distinguish five types of growth in in them, and illustrate the types with examples. The authors investigate transfer of a status intervention—introducing a specific status characteristic to reduce expectation effects of a diffuse status characteristic—across tasks and interactants.

Experimental results showed (1) the intervention was effective in reducing unwanted status generalization; (2) effects of the intervention transferred to a new situation; (3) the transferred expectations were weaker than they were in the original group. These effects are as predicted from the 1977 theory of status characteristics and expectation states.

However this experiment gives essential information on how to construct a status graph of the situation. The authors claim that theoretical growth is often obscured by a narrow definition of “growth,” one that emphasizes only empirical support for a unit theory.

They introduce the idea of theoretical research programs, distinguish five types of growth in in them, and illustrate the types with examples. Working PapersThe Working Papers probably were produced between 1984 and 1991 and were numbered with the year indicated by two digits and the serial number of the WP for that year following a dash.

Thus “84-1” denotes the first WP of 1984; it is also the first Working Paper 15 Jan 2016 - There are numerous experiments which have been designed to test numerous scientific and disadvantages of laboratory experiment in sociology. The learner gave mainly wrong answers (on purpose) and for each of these into a lab in order to observe how the interact with 'independent variables'..

Working Paper #89-6 is the final one numbered this way. Working Papers #100-1, 100-2, and 100-6 are dated 1993 on the title pages.

“Cerebral Balance, Recognition Accuracy, and Confidence when Task Performance Requires the Use of Preconsciously Acquired Information.

This TP is an attempt to identify brain mechanisms associated with the finding that mere exposure to words, patterns, and other stimuli often leads to liking, even when the exposure is too brief to produce conscious awareness.

The authors investigate recognition accuracy of very brief (subliminal) exposure to stimuli following instructions to report either which stimulus they thought was familiar (left brain) or which the liked better (right brain). Results showed that participants instructed to process stimuli using right brain were more accurate.

The authors interpreted the data as showing that right brain processing, which occurs outside of conscious awareness, is responsible for the subliminal “familiarity leads to liking” phenomenon. The authors develop a definition of potential power—what an actor could to another actor if the first cared strongly enough about something—and explore its properties.

Experimental research shows that potential power affects others’ behavior even when the powerful actor does not express preferences, promise rewards, or threaten penalties. The authors develop an explicit theoretical foundation for the common belief that legitimation is somehow important in mobilizing collective action.

They distinguish validity of a rule (collective support) from propriety (individual support) and predict that validity affects mobilization independent of propriety. Results of an experimental test support the derivations.

“A (Not So) Quick and Dirty Look at Robust M-Estimation.

Robust estimators, those procedures that distinguish likely from unlikely distributions, sometimes are preferable to either parametric or distribution-free estimations.

This WP explores statistical properties of maximum likelihood estimates, or M-Estimates, which are one kind of robust estimators. Analyses and simulations show general suitability and accuracy of one class of robust estimators.

The results also show that the worst estimators are the classical parametric estimators and statistical tests. The author concludes that a research loses little by using robust estimators when the data are normally distributed, and risks serious errors using parametric estimators when the data are not normally distributed.

“Social Environment and its Relation to Stress Responses Among Individuals: A Descriptive Study.

This WP probably is based on the same research as the following one, WP 84-7. According to WP 84-7, 84-6 provided greater detail on research procedures and the research questionnaire.

, Dorine Barr-Bryan, Kinga Perlaki, and Patricia R. “The Impact of Selected Social Environmental and Individual Factors on Stress Responses.

The authors attempt to clarify some factors in the relationships between high levels of stress and poor physical and mental health.

They review many possible sources of individual variation in responses to stress, including different living environments, interrelated social and individual factors, and differences across gender groups. Physiological and behavioral data collected from college students at a blood bank assessed multiple social and individual factors, self-reported stress, and levels of norepinephrine, a physiological indicator of stress.

Results showed a fairly complex pattern of results, although social support was generally helpful in reducing stress, and gender differences in both social and physiological responses were found. Rainwater, Julie, Max Nelson-Kilger, and Jacqueline Cashen. “Using Micro-Computers to Develop a Standardized Open Interaction Experimental Situation. The authors investigate the idea of nondecisions regarding redistributive political agenda.

They focus on an idea that the greater the likelihood that a policy would redistribute resources, the less likely that policy is to reach a group’s agenda. Results of an experimental test of the idea, also involving legitimacy of the agenda-setting, were somewhat unclear.

Self-interest of a gatekeeper was not the only source of actions, and overall, results were inconsistent with a purely self-interested explanation for behavior. “Why Do Individuals Nondecide under Uncertainty?”a. This WP continues the investigation in WP 84-3.

There, they found that influence accepted by an actor S was negatively related to a central person’s (C) power even if S did not know how C’s preferences or how likely C was to use the power. They attempt to distinguish two explanations: (1) S infers C’s preferences and the probability that C will use the power from C’s structural position or (2) that uncertainty itself causes S to avoid action regardless of any inferences that S might make.

Results of a vignette study with college student respondents generally favored the second explanation, though the authors discuss several reasons to be cautious about interfering strict similarity of results from behavioral experiments and vignettes. The authors develop a theory of expectations about interpersonal power to control rewards and punishments, and to induce compliance. They present an extended review of conceptions of power, and identify four empirical features that can be used to assess their new theory.

The theory includes ideas on subjective expected utility and expectations for power and power use. “Gender or Status: The Effects of Differences in Sex on Behavior under Certain Conditions of Disadvantage. The authors address gender stereotypes: women are passive, dependent, compliant, cooperative, and socially oriented; while men are independent, competitive, and task-focused. They note that those behaviors are found in mixed-gender interaction, but are seldom found in same-gender groups.

An experiment using a Bavelas box to collect messages tested ideas on effects of structure, legitimation, and rewards on behavior. Results showed no differences in the ways men and women acted in the experiment, which is consistent with a structural interpretation and not with a gender-difference interpretation.

“When Inequality is Equitable: Validity, Propriety and Third Party Allocations.

The author summarizes theories of equity and distributive justice that predict actors use legitimate distribution rules to act to maintain or to restore equity.

He elaborates those ideas, distinguishing legitimacy based on validity (socially supported) from propriety (acceptance by the focal actor). Experimental research showed strong effects of both types of legitimacy on behavior, with validity having slightly stronger effects.

“Gender Differences in Leadership and Influence in Small Groups.

The authors respond to two critiques of their article “Do Sociological Theories Grow?” (1985). This WP is a somewhat longer version of their published responses (1986).

“Legitimacy, Justification, and Collective Action. This WP continues investigations in WP 84-3 and 84-10.

The authors report an experiment in which they varied the expected likelihood that an advantaged central actor would punish others for attempting to change an inequitable reward structure. Results showed that attempts to change the structure were inversely proportional to the expected likelihood of a penalty, even though the central actor never expressed preferences, demanded compliance, promised rewards, or threatened penalties.

This WP was prepared for a conference on the current state and future prospects for status and expectations research 13 Jan 2016 - I'll return to the use of laboratory and field experiments in sociology in order to measure the effect they have on the dependent variable..

It summarizes theoretical and empirical investigations, and describes the present structure of the program. “Organization and productivity in R & D Teams: A Report of Research Findings. The authors report findings from 224 teams in Silicon Valley on the effects of factors on team productivity and innovativeness. The factors are of four types: interaction, team composition, team organization, and perceptions of the company.

Some of these finding were published by Cohen and Zhou (1991). “The Communication Network Structures of R & D Units. The author develops a bounded rationality model of effects of communication structures and applies it to 223 R & D teams. One main result was that structural properties of a team’s network were strongly associated with evaluations the team received from management.

“Status Inconsistency and Status Processing Principles.

It was published by Berger, Norman, Balkwell and Smith (1992). “Theory Growth, Social Processes, and Metatheory.

Group tasks require communication, but communication can be excessive and time-wasting.

The authors develop propositions group productivity and interaction. High reciprocal interdependence in teams requires high levels of interaction, but when interdependence is low, interaction can interfere with productivity.

After developing appropriate measures of the variables, they tested that idea and related ideas with 224 R & D teams and found a strong relationship between communication and productivity on interdependent tasks. “Contextual Analysis of Team Productivity in the R & D Industry. The authors distinguish six types of productivity in different contexts and develop six corresponding scales and estimate reliability coefficients. Coefficients differ depending on context, supporting an argument that the meanings of productivity, and so its appropriate measurements, differ depending on structure and goals of the teams.

“Expected Managerial Careers within Growing and Declining R & D Establishments. The author notes that many studies have used individual-level variables to predict a tendency of scientists to aspire to managerial careers, and proposes that a better understanding of such career progression would include structural and organizational factors. Individual factor did indeed explain much aspiration.

The new structural variables added explanatory power, but only in growing organizations. Individual factors may be useful in hiring decisions, while structural factors have implications for design of the R & D structures.

This WP was published by Cohen and Zhou (1991).

“Theoretical Structures and the Micro-Macro Problem. This WP was published by Berger, Eyre, and Zelditch (1989). “Introduction to a Theory of Group Structure and Information Exchange. This theoretical paper develops a framework for relationships between group structure and information exchange. Status orders among group members are important in situations that lack well-developed practices for work and clear criteria for evaluating outcomes.

, Larry Rogers, Katherine Lyman, and Morris Zelditch, Jr. “Legitimacy and the Support of Revolutionary Coalitions. The authors develop a theory of conditions under which inequity will lead to attempts to change the structure. Factors affecting the likelihood of attempts include power differences, false consciousness, low self-esteem, and perceived legitimacy of the inequality.

Experimental research focusing on legitimacy show that propriety, endorsement, and authorization all affect the likelihood that group members will support a revolutionary movement. “All or Nothing: Response to the Illegitimacy of Acts, Persons, and Positions.

“Status Characteristics and Expectation States: A Priori Model Parameters and Test.

The authors theoretically derive f(i) parameter values for use in calculating relative expectations (ep – eo) in the graph model of the theory of status characteristics and expectation states.

“Participation in Heterogeneous and Homogeneous Groups: A Theoretical Integration. The authors define a behavior interchange pattern that can affect performance expectation states and behavior. Freeman, Sabrina, Kelly Massey, and Morris Zelditch, Jr.

The authors conducted experimental research on the acceptability of excuses (a personal account of making a procedural error) and justifications (an argument for what the violator had done) for norm violation.

The actor offering the account or justification was either equated with the subjects on education or had an advantage on that characteristic. Results showed that status advantage increased the acceptance of the justification but reduced the acceptance of the excuse.

This WP is a follow-up to research by Massey, Freeman and Zelditch (1997). “Status Characteristics and Social Interaction: An Assessment of Theoretical Variants. The author compares and evaluates variant theories proposed in the literature for the processing of status information and effects of expectation states on behavior. The issue was to determine conditions under which, if any, status generalization could be eliminated.

The analysis concludes that earlier arguments that found such effects incorrectly analyzd their supporting data. The authors compare variant formulations (different from those considered in 1990-1) for predicting the processing of status information.

The main competitor considered argued that highly relevant information would eliminate effects of less relevant information. Results from a vignette study confirmed predictions of the original status theory and disconfirmed predictions of the competing theory.

“A Revised Bibliography of Expectation States Research. Berger, Wagner, and Webster (2014) provide a newer, although focused, view of the program. The author describes his career and the growth of the Expectation States research program. This talk was delivered when Joseph Berger received the Cooley-Mead Award from the Social Psychology Section of the American Sociological Association in 1991.

The authors describe unit theories, theoretical research programs, and orienting strategies, and elaborate on types of growth in theoretical research programs. “Control and Cooptation in Mexican Politics,” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 7: 11-28.

Reprinted in Irving Louis Horowitz, Josue de Castro, and John Gerassi (Editors), Latin American Radicalism: A Documentary Report on Left and Nationalist Movements (1969). “Status Characteristics and Social Interaction: An Assessment of Theoretical Variants.

Walker (Editors), Advances in Group Processes Vol.

Balkwell, James, Joseph Berger, Murray Webster, Jr. “Processing Status Information: Some Tests of Competing Theoretical Arguments” Chap.

Walker (Editors), Ad­vances in Group Processes, Vol. “Physiological Sociology: Interface of Sociological and Biological Processes.

“Social Interaction and the Brain’s Lateralization of Hemispheric Function.

Mendoza (Editors), Social Cohesion: Essays Toward a Sociophysiological Perspective. “Processing of Preconsciously Acquired Information Measured by Hemispheric Asymmetry and Selection Accuracy. “Relations between Performance, Rewards, and Action-Opportunities in Small Groups. “Expectation States Theory: A Theoretical Research Program. Hamit Fisek (Editors), Expectation States Theory: A Theoretical Research Program. “Expectations, Theory and Group Processes: The Cooley-Mead Award Presentation Address.

““The Standardized Experimental Situation in Expectation States Research: Notes on History, Uses and Special Features.

, and Jane Sell (Editors), Laboratory Experiments in the Social Sciences, 1st edition, pp.

, and Bo Anderson (Editors), Sociological Theories in Progress, Vol. “Status Characteristics and Expectation States: A Process Model” Pp.

, and Bo Anderson (Editors), Sociological Theories in Progress, Vol.

“Performance Expectations and Behavior in Small Groups. “Evaluations and the Formation and Maintenance of Performance Expectations. “Theoretical Structures and the Micro-Macro Problem.

, and Bo Anderson (Editors), Sociological Theories in Progress: New Formulations. “Consistent and Inconsistent Social Characteristics and the Determination of Power and Prestige Orders.

“A Generalization of the Theory of Status Characteristics and Expectation States. Fisek (Editors), Expectation States Theory: A Theoretical Research Program.

“The Evolution of Status Expectations: A Theoretical Extension.

, and Bo Anderson (Editors), Sociological Theories in Progress: New Formulations. “Formation of Reward Expectations in Status Situations.

215-261 in Joseph Berger and Morris Zelditch, Jr.

Status Characteristics and Social Interaction, New York: Elsevier. “Status Inconsistency in Task Situations: A Test of Four Status Processing Principles.

“Expectation States Theory: Growth, Opportunities, and Challenges.

Lawler (Editors), Advances in Group Processes Volume 31. “Expectation States Theory: The Status of a Research Program.

“Theory Growth, Social Processes, and Metatheory.

19-42 in Jonathan Turner (Editor), Theory-Building in Sociology.

” Pp 3-19 in Joseph Berger and Morris Zelditch Jr. (Editors), Theoretical Research Programs: Studies in the Growth of Theories.

“Structural Aspects of Distributive Justice: A Status Value Formulation.

Anderson (Editors), Sociological Theories in Progress, Vol.

, and Bo Anderson (Editors), Sociological Theories in Progress, Vol.

“Capital Cities in the American Urban System: The Impact of State Expansion. “The Social Structure of Scientific Research Teams. “Participation in Heterogeneous and Homogeneous Groups: A Theoretical Integration. “Status Characteristics and Expectation States Theory: A Priori Model Parameters and Test. “Dynamics of Formal Political Structure: An Event-History Analysis. “The Causal Approach to Measurement Error in Panel Analysis: Some Further Contingencies.

(Editor), Measurement in the Social Sciences: Theories and Strategies.

“Estimation in Panel Models: Results on Pooling Cross-Sections and Time Series. Horowitz, Irving Louis, Josue de Castro, and John Gerassi. Latin American Radicalism: A Documentary Report on Left and Nationalist Movements. “Theoretical Consequences of the Status Characteristics Formulation. “The Structure of Ex-Spousal Relations: An Exercise in Theoretical Integration and Application. , and Martha Foschi (Editors), Status Generalization: New Theory and Research.

Anderson (Editors), Sociological Theories in Progress, Vol.

“Status Inconsistency: A Reformulation of a Theoretical Problem. “Relations among Status, Power and Economic Rewards in Simple and Complex Systems.

Anderson (Editors), Sociological Theories in Progress, Vol.

“An Experimental Test of a Reward-Cost Formulation of Status Inconsistency. ” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 3: 399-415.

“Do Status Interventions Persist?” American Sociological Review 49: 373-382. Massey, Kelly, Sabrina Freeman, and Morris Zelditch, Jr.

“A Test of Interactionist Hypotheses of Self-Conception.

(Editors), Status, Rewards, and Influence: How Expectations Organize Behavior, pp. Rainwater, Julie, Max Nelson-Kilger, and Jacqueline Cashen.

“Developing an Open Interaction Experimental Situation.

, and Martha Foschi (Editors), Status Generalization: New Theory and Research. “External Status, Legitimacy, and Compliance in Male and Female Groups.

, and Bo Anderson (Editors), Sociological Theories in Progress: New Formulations. “Expected Managerial Careers within Growing and Declining R & D Establishments. “Contextual Analysis of Team Productivity in the R & D Industry.

“Social Mobility, Normlessness and Powerlessness in Two Cultural Contexts.

“Approaches to the Censoring Problem in Analysis of Event Histories. “Paths of Relevance and the Induction of Status-Task Expectancies. “Do Sociological Theories Grow?” The American Journal of Sociology 90: 697-728.

“Gender Differences in Role Differentiation and Organizational Task Performance.

“Legitimacy and Collective Action: A Research Note. “Status Generalization: A Review and Some New Data. Sources of Self-Evaluation: A Formal Theory of Significant Others and Social Influence.

“Status, Endorsement and the Legitimacy of Deviance. , and Bo Anderson (Editors) Sociological Theories in Progress, Vol. , and Bo Anderson (Editors) Sociological Theories in Progress, Vol. 299-314 in Joseph Berger and Morris Zelditch, Jr. (Editors), Status, Power and Legitimacy: Strategies and Theories.

” Research in Social Movements, Conflict, and Change 5: 1-32.

“How are Inconsistencies Between Status and Ability Resolved?” Social Forces 58: 1025-1043.