CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 73Social Power and Status DynamicsSocial Capital and NetworksSocial and Intergroup Psychology

Micro social orders.

Lawler, Edward J.·2002·Social Psychology Quarterly
DOI 10.2307/3090165
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

ing the Theory The theory can be abstracted by recasting key terms more broadly. Social interaction S On the basis of these propositions about joint tasks, the affect theory of exchange offers several hypotheses about structural effects on micro social orders. Aside from analyzing the different forms of exchange (negotiated, etc.), the theory can predict when networks are likely to evolve into groups and when attachments to relations are stronger than to larger social units-that is, networks or groups. (For details, see Lawler 2001a). This content downloaded from 157.55.39.248 on Thu, 28 Jul 2016 05:38:26 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 12 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY can be substituted for social exchange; joint activities can be substituted for joint tasks; and the activities or tasks involved in an episode of social interaction can vary along the same structural and perceptual dimensions as do exchange tasks-that is, in nonseparability and shared responsibility. The results (benefits) of social interaction produce global emotional responses: successful interaction makes them feel good and unsuccessful interaction makes them feel bad (also see Collins 1981). Under the conditions specified by the affect theory, social-unit attributions for these emotions occur. On the broadest level, the fundamental proposition about micro solidarity is captured by a simple causal chain, portrayed in Figure 2. The upshot is that social interaction involves implicit or explicit joint activities based in a social structure, and these generate benefits for actors. These activities may involve spending a pleasant evening with friends, deciding what cultural event to attend, dividing child care responsibilities in a household, and so forth. Emotional experiences-feeling good or feeling bad-follow from these activities. Although these are not under the actors' direct control, the actors can control them to some extent by understanding the situational conditions under which they occur and by influencing those conditions, or engaging in appropriate approach/avoidance behaviors. These everyday emotions and feelings in social interaction are not only internal reinforcements but also internal signals about the course of social interaction, akin to those analyzed in affect control theory (Heise 1979). According to my theory, they are interpreted in collective terms under specified conditions. Moreover, through the theorized process, successful interaction strengthens the emotional basis of both interpersonal and personto-group ties. Integrating Ideas on Micro Solidarity The idea that repetitive or recurrent interaction is a basis for order, cohesion, or solidarity at the micro level is an underlying theme across a wide variety of theoretical traditions and perspectives. Homans (1961), Berger and Luckmann (1966), Randall Collins (1981), Cook and Emerson (1984), Molm (1994), and Dennis Wrong (1995), for example, incorporate this theme. The relevant literature contains four variations on the theme; these, in turn, represent complementary explanations for the social-order effects of recurrent interaction. One class of explanations is social constructionism. Berger and Luckmann (1966) theorize that all actions repeated once or more tend to be habitualized to some degree (p. 57). Actors interpret and ascribe larger meaning to the fact that they interact with the same actors repeatedly; interpretations of habitualization generate reciprocal typifications-that is, consensual definitions of the overarching relationship. In this process, the relation or group becomes an object for actors-a force beyond self and other in the social context-and actors orient themselves to this object. Cognitively based expectations of the other are a second type of explanation-that is, the ability to anticipate and predict the other's preferences, beliefs, and behavioral tendencies. Repetitive interaction creates mutual knowledge that enables each actor to form reliable expectations of how the other will behave and respond, and to adjust their behavior in advance. Examples of this approach include the uncertainty-reduction explanation for commitment (Kollock 1994) as well as trust explanations, where trust is defined as an expectation of cooperation (Pruitt and Kimmel 1977; Yamagishi 1995). The overall point is that actors choose to continue interaction with partners with whom they expect mutual cooperation. Social Joint Emotional Micro Structure Activity * Experiences * Solidarity Figure 2. Basic Causal Sequence, Micro Solidarity This content downloaded from 157.55.39.248 on Thu, 28 Jul 2016 05:38:26 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms MICRO SOCIAL ORDERS 13 Normative-based expectations are a third class of explanations for micro social orders. Normative expectations can be imposed exogenously or generated endogenously; in either case, they accord relationships a moral/ethical legitimation. Role theory (Turner 1978) and structu

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/3090165

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Where commitment to an identity is high, the person will also be affectually attached to the bond itself.

    “Second, where commitment to an identity is high, the person will also be affectually attached to the bond itself (Lawler, 2002).”

    From The Social Roots of Suicide: Theorizing How the External Social World Matters to Suicide and Suicide Prevention (2021) · cites this paper as Lawler, 2002

  • Emotions are the 'glue' of social relationships and signal successful integration or failure, and are fundamental to how Durkheim's regulation becomes internalized into well-being or pain.

    “Emotions are both the “glue” of social relationships and can signal our successful integration (Lawler, 2002) or fulfillment of obligations or expectations, or our failure to do so; and, as such, are a fundamental element of how Durkheim’s regulation becomes internalized into psychological well-being or pain (Scheff, 1997; Lewis, 2003).”

    From The Social Roots of Suicide: Theorizing How the External Social World Matters to Suicide and Suicide Prevention (2021) · cites this paper as Lawler, 2002

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Lawler, E. J.
Corresponding author
Lawler, Edward J.
Venue
Social Psychology Quarterly
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2002-03
Volume
65
Issue
1
Pages
4
ISSN
0190-2725 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2307/3090165
OpenAlex
W2328984113
Cited by
73
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
9.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Social Psychology Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Capital and Networks
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
social order, social exchange, social interaction, affect control theory, social networks, approach-avoidance behavior, interpersonal ties

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review