Preface 1. An initial statement of the problem 2. A theoretical framework 3. Defining topics properly 4. Formulating intelligible requests for information 5. Contextual influences on respondent's interpretations of questions 6. The need to provide response frameworks 7. The limitations of human memory 8. Filters: establishing the relevance of questions to the respondents 9. Reducing question threat 10. The open vs closed question debate: coding reponses to open questions and formulating sets of response options for closed questions 11. Measuring attitudes 12. Checks to ensure that questions work as they are intended to work Conclusions References.

Constructing Questions for Interviews and Questionnaires: Theory and Practice in Social Research

The Social Context of Premarital Sexual Permissiveness

This study explored two questions: Do people tend to display and experience other people's emotions? If so, what impact does power have on people's susceptibility to emotional contagion? We speculated that the powerless should pay more attention to their superiors (than their superiors pay to them) and should thus be especially likely to “catch” their superion' emotions as well. College students, given the role of “teacher” (powerful person) or “learner” (powerless person), observed videotapes of another (fictitious) subject relating an emotional experience. They were asked what emotions they felt as they watched their partner describe the happiest and saddest event in his life. In addition, they were videotaped as they watched the tape. As predicted, clear evidence of emotional contagion was obtained in this controlled laboratory setting. However, a direct (rather than inverse) relation between power and emotional contagion was found. Powerful subjects were more likely to display their subordina...

The effect of power on susceptibility to emotional contagion

Two major theoretical approaches have dominated the quest for uniquely human cognitive abilities: a developmentalist approach stressing the importance of environmental and social conditions, and a predominant approach in experimental and comparative psychology, the deterministic approach suggesting the effect of environmental and social conditions to be minimal. As a consequence, most claims of human cognitive uniqueness are based on comparisons of White middle class Westerner humans (Homo sapiens) with captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). However, humans are much more than only White middle class Westerners, and chimpanzees are much more than only captives. A review of some data available on different populations of humans and chimpanzees reveals that only the predictions of the developmentalist approach are supported. In addition, systematic biases are too often introduced in experiment protocols when comparing humans with apes that further cast doubts on cross-species comparisons. The author argues that only with consideration of within-species population differences in the cognitive domains and the use of well-matched cross-species experimental procedures will an objective understanding of the different cognitive abilities between species emerge. This will require a shift in the theoretical approach adopted by many in experimental and comparative psychology.

/pdf/what-makes-us-human-homo-sapiens-the-challenge-of-cognitive-524tq4vq4i.pdf

What makes us human (Homo sapiens)? The challenge of cognitive cross-species comparison.

Drawing on symbolic interactionism, we propose a process model for the creation and recreation of routines. Our model extends the performative perspective by exploring how routines, as collective accomplishments, are (re)created from within. In particular, we examine the mutual constitution of routines' constituent parts (performative and ostensive) through interaction, and we develop endogenous explanations of routine (re)creation grounded on the actions and understandings of mutually susceptible participants. Mead's concept of role taking, with its strong emphasis on the relational aspect of agency, enables us to account for the fitting together of individual lines of action (performative) and the sharing of participants' schemata (included in the ostensive) as mutually constituted processes that occur as participants develop distinct selves in the context of a routine. Moreover, we account for the content and structure of the ostensive aspect and propose a conceptualization that does justice to it as a...

Understanding the (Re)Creation of Routines from Within: A Symbolic Interactionist Perspective

It is theorized that when structural control resources are not available, persons will tend to use role-taking as a "management" strategy. Thus role-taking ability is at a premium when the subordinate attempts to balance the structurally based power of a superordinate by increasing the latter's ego gratification in the relationship. Role-taking and power are seen as distinct strategies by which persons achieve control of others. Drawing from a sample of 888 subjects from 222 family units, questionnaire data are analyzed to test the hypothesis that role-taking accuracy will be inversely related to power inside the family. Using position in the nuclear family as an index of power, it was found that fathers were less accurate role-takers than mothers and mothers less accurate than children. Data were also analyzed using children's perceptions of their parents' power and the wife's perceptions of conjugal decision-making as measures of power. Partial support for the hypothesis was found in that dominant wives were poorer role-takers than wives with less decision-making power (autonomic). Research is suggested to test the proposition that role-taking ability may be a function of the person's position on a situationally given role-set rather than a static personality trait.

David D. Franks

Papers

Role-taking and power in social psychology.