复旦大学：《视觉文化与社会性别》参考文献_sociological theories of human emotions

nnu. Rev. Sociol. 2006. 32- 25-52 血⊙2065AmRF0306112313 First published online as a Review in Advance on March 23. 2006 SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF HUMAN EMOTIONS Jonathan H. Turner and Jan E Stets Department of Sociology, University of Califomia, Riverside, Califomia 92521; email:jonathan. turner@ucredu, jan stets @ucred Key Words affect, emotions, theory Abstract Over the past three decades, five general theoretical approaches to un- derstanding the dynamics of human emotions have emerged in sociology: dramatur gical theories, symbolic interactionist theories, interaction ritual theories, power and status theories, and exchange theories. We review each of these approaches. Despite the progress made by these theories, several issues remain unresolved: the nature of emotions, feeling, and affect; the degree to which emotions are biologically based ially constructed; the gap between social psychological theories on emotions and macrostructural theorizing; and the relatively narrow range of emotions theorized, cou- led with an equally narrow focus on the structural and cultural conditions producing INTRODUCTION Aside from Cooley(1964[1902), the founding sociologists did not provide many theoretical leads for analyzing emotions, and thus it should not be surprising that the sociology of emotions did not emerge until the last decades of the twentieth century. Despite this late start, however, the study of emotions has accelerated over past three decades, as can be seen by consulting earli reviews of sociological research and theorizing on emotions(e. g, Kemper 1990, Smith- Lovin 1995, Stets 2003, Turner Stets 2005). Now, it is possible to isolate a set of explicit approaches to understanding human emotions, including dramaturgical, symbolic interactionist, interaction ritual, power and status, and exchange theories of emotional dynamics. In a very real sense, sociology has made up for the lost decades of the twentieth century when very little theoretical and empirical work on emotions was conducted. Indeed, the analysis of emotions can now be seen as one of the cutting edges of theoretical work in sociology. In this review, we first examine the main lines of sociological theorizing, with an eye to extracting the orking generalizations that guide research within each theoretical perspective. e then outline some of the problems in current theories. We conclude with some thoughts as to how to build cumulative theory in the sociology of emotions 0360-0572/060811-0025s20.00

31 May 2006 17:32 AR ANRV280-SO32-02.tex XMLPublishSM(2004/02/24) P1: JRX 10.1146/annurev.soc.32.061604.123130 Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2006. 32:25–52 doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.32.061604.123130 Copyright c 2006 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved First published online as a Review in Advance on March 23, 2006 SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF HUMAN EMOTIONS Jonathan H. Turner and Jan E. Stets Department of Sociology, University of California, Riverside, California 92521; email: jonathan.turner@ucr.edu, jan.stets@ucr.edu Key Words affect, emotions, theory ■ Abstract Over the past three decades, five general theoretical approaches to un￾derstanding the dynamics of human emotions have emerged in sociology: dramatur￾gical theories, symbolic interactionist theories, interaction ritual theories, power and status theories, and exchange theories. We review each of these approaches. Despite the progress made by these theories, several issues remain unresolved: the nature of emotions, feeling, and affect; the degree to which emotions are biologically based or socially constructed; the gap between social psychological theories on emotions and macrostructural theorizing; and the relatively narrow range of emotions theorized, cou￾pled with an equally narrow focus on the structural and cultural conditions producing these emotions. INTRODUCTION Aside from Cooley (1964 [1902]), the founding sociologists did not provide many theoretical leads for analyzing emotions, and thus it should not be surprising that the sociology of emotions did not emerge until the last decades of the twentieth century. Despite this late start, however, the study of emotions has accelerated over the past three decades, as can be seen by consulting earlier reviews and compilations of sociological research and theorizing on emotions (e.g., Kemper 1990, Smith￾Lovin 1995, Stets 2003, Turner & Stets 2005). Now, it is possible to isolate a set of explicit approaches to understanding human emotions, including dramaturgical, symbolic interactionist, interaction ritual, power and status, and exchange theories of emotional dynamics. In a very real sense, sociology has made up for the lost decades of the twentieth century when very little theoretical and empirical work on emotions was conducted. Indeed, the analysis of emotions can now be seen as one of the cutting edges of theoretical work in sociology. In this review, we first examine the main lines of sociological theorizing, with an eye to extracting the working generalizations that guide research within each theoretical perspective. We then outline some of the problems in current theories. We conclude with some thoughts as to how to build cumulative theory in the sociology of emotions. 0360-0572/06/0811-0025$20.00 25 Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2006.32:25-52. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 11/14/07. For personal use only.

TURNER■ STETS FIVE THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON HUMAN EMOTIONS Dramaturgical Theories Dramaturgical theories emphasize that individuals make dramatic presentations ind engage in strategic actions directed by a cultural script. Although the termi- nology varies among different theorists, the cultural script guiding action includes ideologies, norms and rules, logics, vocabularies, and implicit stocks of knowledge about which feelings should be experienced and expressed in episodes of face-to- face interaction. Actors present self in strategic ways, emitting the emotions that are dictated by emotion ideologies and rules. When necessary, actors draw upon the cultural vocabularies and logics that define how emotions should be expressed Individuals are, in essence, dramatic actors on a stage playing parts dictated by culture, and, like all theater, they are given some dramatic license in how they play roles, as long as they do not deviate too far from the emotional script provided by When individuals do break rules of feeling and display, they experience negative emotions, particularly embarrassment and shame( Goffman 1967, Scheff 1988), nd they become highly motivated to repair their breach of cultural prescriptions and proscriptions. To avoid breaches, individuals employ the appropriate emo. tional vocabularies and syntax( Gordon 1989, Rosenberg 1991)to convince both themselves and others that they are indeed abiding by feeling rules and display rules(Hochschild 1979, 1983). Persons also consciously manipulate facial expres- sions, forms of talk, and gestures to sustain an impression that feeling and display rules are being met. They also use physical props such as clothing or objects on the interpersonal stage to communicate to others that they are adhering to emotion ideologies and norms. Individuals are not, however, viewed as tightly programmed by culture. Instead, dramaturgical theories all emphasize that persons engage in a considerable amount use emotional displays to con others in confidence games of varying magnitude Goffman 1961, 1967). Another manipulative strategy is to use emotions to gain other resources in microeconomic exchanges. For example, in Clark's(1997)con eptualization of sympathy, individuals offer sympathy to others in exchange for nother valued emotional resource, such as gratitude. Clark also points out that actors manipulate emotional displays in games of micropolitics to gain power in an interaction. She argues that the offer of sympathy, for instance, is often used to establish superiority over those who receive sympathy. Virtually all emotions can be strategically used in this manner because individuals have the capacity for expressive control of their emotions, using the display of emotions on stage to gain resource advantages over others. As Goffman(1959, 1967)emphasized, however, when individuals cannot sustain expressive control and violate the cultural script, hey lose face and must make ritual apologies that reduce their prestige and power

31 May 2006 17:32 AR ANRV280-SO32-02.tex XMLPublishSM(2004/02/24) P1: JRX 26 TURNER STETS FIVE THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON HUMAN EMOTIONS Dramaturgical Theories Dramaturgical theories emphasize that individuals make dramatic presentations and engage in strategic actions directed by a cultural script. Although the termi￾nology varies among different theorists, the cultural script guiding action includes ideologies, norms and rules, logics, vocabularies, and implicit stocks of knowledge about which feelings should be experienced and expressed in episodes of face-to￾face interaction. Actors present self in strategic ways, emitting the emotions that are dictated by emotion ideologies and rules. When necessary, actors draw upon the cultural vocabularies and logics that define how emotions should be expressed. Individuals are, in essence, dramatic actors on a stage playing parts dictated by culture, and, like all theater, they are given some dramatic license in how they play roles, as long as they do not deviate too far from the emotional script provided by culture. When individuals do break rules of feeling and display, they experience negative emotions, particularly embarrassment and shame (Goffman 1967, Scheff 1988), and they become highly motivated to repair their breach of cultural prescriptions and proscriptions. To avoid breaches, individuals employ the appropriate emo￾tional vocabularies and syntax (Gordon 1989, Rosenberg 1991) to convince both themselves and others that they are indeed abiding by feeling rules and display rules (Hochschild 1979, 1983). Persons also consciously manipulate facial expres￾sions, forms of talk, and gestures to sustain an impression that feeling and display rules are being met. They also use physical props such as clothing or objects on the interpersonal stage to communicate to others that they are adhering to emotion ideologies and norms. Individuals are not, however, viewed as tightly programmed by culture. Instead, dramaturgical theories all emphasize that persons engage in a considerable amount of expressive manipulation along several fronts. One source of manipulation is to use emotional displays to con others in confidence games of varying magnitude (Goffman 1961, 1967). Another manipulative strategy is to use emotions to gain other resources in microeconomic exchanges. For example, in Clark’s (1997) con￾ceptualization of sympathy, individuals offer sympathy to others in exchange for another valued emotional resource, such as gratitude. Clark also points out that actors manipulate emotional displays in games of micropolitics to gain power in an interaction. She argues that the offer of sympathy, for instance, is often used to establish superiority over those who receive sympathy. Virtually all emotions can be strategically used in this manner because individuals have the capacity for expressive control of their emotions, using the display of emotions on stage to gain resource advantages over others. As Goffman (1959, 1967) emphasized, however, when individuals cannot sustain expressive control and violate the cultural script, they lose face and must make ritual apologies that reduce their prestige and power in an encounter. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2006.32:25-52. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 11/14/07. For personal use only.

SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF HUMAN EMOTIONS 27 Dramaturgical theories also emphasize that individuals must manage emotional displays when social structures and the cultural script associated with these struc- tures generate discontinuity between what people feel and what they must ex- press to others in their audience. For instance, Hochschild's(1983, 1990), Thoits's (1990, 1991), and Rosenbergs(1990, 1991)respective approaches all stress that individuals are often caught in a conflict between the emotion ideologies, feeling rules, and display rules on the one side and their actual emotional experiences on the other. When discrepancies between feelings and feeling rules exist, the dis- crepancy generates a new kind of negative emotional arousal, above and beyond the emotions initially experienced. Thus, a person who feels sad in a situation demanding the expression of happiness may also become angry at having to ap- ar happy, thus ratcheting up the emotional intensity(sadness plus anger) and forcing this person to engage in even more expressive control to meet cultural Societies revealing high levels of structural differentiation, high rates of mobility across positions and roles, and mediation of social relations through markets are the st likely to generate discrepancies between actual feelings and the dictates of the emotion culture( Hochschild 1983). For example, market relations between sellers and buyers demand high levels of emotional management from sellers of goods and services; diverse subcultural affiliations can put individuals in cultural conflicts over how to display emotions; complex status-sets can place persons in emotional conflict; systems of authority arouse negative emotions in subordinates that must be controlled; or rigid rules in the name of efficiency and quality control often have the same effect as systems of authority for those who must obey these rules. These and many other situations systematically generated by differentiation and markets require individuals to engage in what Hochschild (1983)terms emotion work. Several theories list the emotion management strategies available to individuals caught in a situation in which they must engage in emotion work. Some of these are listed in Table In sum, dramaturgical theories emphasize the importance of culture in defining which emotions are to be experienced and expressed in situations. The emotion ulture constrains the actions of individuals on a stage in front of audiences, and yet individuals do have some degree of flexibility to engage in strategic actions. In fact, they often use emotionally laden expressive behavior in efforts to manipulate audiences about their sincerity and concern, to extract valued resources in games of microeconomics, or to gain power over others in games of micropolitics. Yet, lese same actors are often caught in a conflict between feeling ideologies and rules on the one side and their actual feelings on the other. As a result, they must engage in emotion-work strategies to reduce the degree of discrepancy between eelings and feeling rules. The generalizations that guide dramaturgical theorizing and research can thus be summarized as follows. 1. The more powerful that the emotion culture is in a situation, the more indi- viduals must engage in impression management of their emotions througl (a)expressive control of face, voice, and body and (b)use of physical props

31 May 2006 17:32 AR ANRV280-SO32-02.tex XMLPublishSM(2004/02/24) P1: JRX SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF HUMAN EMOTIONS 27 Dramaturgical theories also emphasize that individuals must manage emotional displays when social structures and the cultural script associated with these struc￾tures generate discontinuity between what people feel and what they must ex￾press to others in their audience. For instance, Hochschild’s (1983, 1990), Thoits’s (1990, 1991), and Rosenberg’s (1990, 1991) respective approaches all stress that individuals are often caught in a conflict between the emotion ideologies, feeling rules, and display rules on the one side and their actual emotional experiences on the other. When discrepancies between feelings and feeling rules exist, the dis￾crepancy generates a new kind of negative emotional arousal, above and beyond the emotions initially experienced. Thus, a person who feels sad in a situation demanding the expression of happiness may also become angry at having to ap￾pear happy, thus ratcheting up the emotional intensity (sadness plus anger) and forcing this person to engage in even more expressive control to meet cultural expectations. Societies revealing high levels of structural differentiation, high rates of mobility across positions and roles, and mediation of social relations through markets are the most likely to generate discrepancies between actual feelings and the dictates of the emotion culture (Hochschild 1983). For example, market relations between sellers and buyers demand high levels of emotional management from sellers of goods and services; diverse subcultural affiliations can put individuals in cultural conflicts over how to display emotions; complex status-sets can place persons in emotional conflict; systems of authority arouse negative emotions in subordinates that must be controlled; or rigid rules in the name of efficiency and quality control often have the same effect as systems of authority for those who must obey these rules. These and many other situations systematically generated by differentiation and markets require individuals to engage in what Hochschild (1983) terms emotion work. Several theories list the emotion management strategies available to individuals caught in a situation in which they must engage in emotion work. Some of these are listed in Table 1. In sum, dramaturgical theories emphasize the importance of culture in defining which emotions are to be experienced and expressed in situations. The emotion culture constrains the actions of individuals on a stage in front of audiences, and yet individuals do have some degree of flexibility to engage in strategic actions. In fact, they often use emotionally laden expressive behavior in efforts to manipulate audiences about their sincerity and concern, to extract valued resources in games of microeconomics, or to gain power over others in games of micropolitics. Yet, these same actors are often caught in a conflict between feeling ideologies and rules on the one side and their actual feelings on the other. As a result, they must engage in emotion-work strategies to reduce the degree of discrepancy between feelings and feeling rules. The generalizations that guide dramaturgical theorizing and research can thus be summarized as follows: 1. The more powerful that the emotion culture is in a situation, the more indi￾viduals must engage in impression management of their emotions through (a) expressive control of face, voice, and body and (b) use of physical props. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2006.32:25-52. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 11/14/07. For personal use only

TURNER■ STETS TABLE 1 Emotion-work strategies Behavioral strategic 1. Recite emotion vocabulary and syntax dictated by emotion ideology and norms. 2. Engage in body work such as relaxation(or its opposite)that can arouse the emotions dictated by the emotion ideology and norms ngage in surface acting by emitting expressive gestures th the emotion ideology and norms to arouse culturally appropriate emotions. 4. Use drugs(and other substances )or exercise to generate appropriate feelings or, alternatively, to diminish inappropriate feelings 5. Release true feelings, even if they violate the dictates of emotion culture, in an effort to redefine the situation and recalibrate the emotion culture 6. Seek help and advice from others on how to manage emotions. 7. Leave the situation that generates discrepancies between actual feelings and dictates of emotion ideology and norm 1. Invoke thoughts and ideas associated with the emotions demanded by the emotion ideology and norms. 4. Call up thoughts and emotions that distance self from the conflict between the cultural expectations and actual feeling 5. Repress negative emotions and remove them from conscious reflection. 2- 6. Fantasize about possible alternatives to the conflict between cultural expectations and 7. Psychologically withdraw from the situation to mask the discrepancies between actual feelings and dictates of emotion ideology and norms. Sources: Hochschild (1983). Rosenberg(1991). Thoits(1990) 2. The more that individuals engage in impression management of emotions the greater is(a) the potential for strategic use of emotional displays in games of confidence, microeconomics, and micropolitics and(b) the potential that individuals' true feelings will be at odds with at least some elements of the 3. The more that efforts of impression management violate the ideology and norms of the emotion culture, the more intense is the arousal of negative emotions in both the offender and the audience, and the more the offender must engage in repair rituals with the audience to reaffirm the emotion culture and his or her commitment to the tenets of this cultur 4. The more that a society is structurally differentiated, has high rates of mo- bility across structures, and mediates social relations by market forces, the more likely that the demands of the emotion culture will come into confict with the emotions that individuals actually experience. 5. The more that the dictates of the emotion culture and the structure of a situation conflict with persons'actual feelings, the more likely are individuals to engage in emotion-work strategies enumerated in Table 1

31 May 2006 17:32 AR ANRV280-SO32-02.tex XMLPublishSM(2004/02/24) P1: JRX 28 TURNER STETS TABLE 1 Emotion-work strategies Behavioral strategies 1. Recite emotion vocabulary and syntax dictated by emotion ideology and norms. 2. Engage in body work such as relaxation (or its opposite) that can arouse the emotions dictated by the emotion ideology and norms. 3. Engage in surface acting by emitting expressive gestures consistent with the emotion ideology and norms to arouse culturally appropriate emotions. 4. Use drugs (and other substances) or exercise to generate appropriate feelings or, alternatively, to diminish inappropriate feelings. 5. Release true feelings, even if they violate the dictates of emotion culture, in an effort to redefine the situation and recalibrate the emotion culture. 6. Seek help and advice from others on how to manage emotions. 7. Leave the situation that generates discrepancies between actual feelings and dictates of emotion ideology and norms. Cognitive strategies 1. Invoke thoughts and ideas associated with the emotions demanded by the emotion ideology and norms. 2. Use meditation or hypnosis that can arouse the emotions dictated by the culture. 3. Arouse through deep acting the emotions dictated by the emotion ideology and norms. 4. Call up thoughts and emotions that distance self from the conflict between the cultural expectations and actual feelings. 5. Repress negative emotions and remove them from conscious reflection. 6. Fantasize about possible alternatives to the conflict between cultural expectations and actual feelings, or, alternatively, visualize solutions to the conflict. 7. Psychologically withdraw from the situation to mask the discrepancies between actual feelings and dictates of emotion ideology and norms. Sources: Hochschild (1983), Rosenberg (1991), Thoits (1990). 2. The more that individuals engage in impression management of emotions, the greater is (a) the potential for strategic use of emotional displays in games of confidence, microeconomics, and micropolitics and (b) the potential that individuals’ true feelings will be at odds with at least some elements of the emotion culture. 3. The more that efforts of impression management violate the ideology and norms of the emotion culture, the more intense is the arousal of negative emotions in both the offender and the audience, and the more the offender must engage in repair rituals with the audience to reaffirm the emotion culture and his or her commitment to the tenets of this culture. 4. The more that a society is structurally differentiated, has high rates of mo￾bility across structures, and mediates social relations by market forces, the more likely that the demands of the emotion culture will come into conflict with the emotions that individuals actually experience. 5. The more that the dictates of the emotion culture and the structure of a situation conflict with persons’ actual feelings, the more likely are individuals to engage in emotion-work strategies enumerated in Table 1. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2006.32:25-52. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 11/14/07. For personal use only.

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

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