2007•Sociological FocusRequires access

Symbolic Interactionism and Expectation States Theory: Similarities and Differences

David G. Wagner

Open publisher page 12 citations

Abstract

Theories in the expectation states theoretical research program are often seen as based on the orienting strategy of symbolic interactionism. Certainly there are similarities. For example, both consider the actor's definition of the situation central to accounting for behavior. Both emphasize the situational specificity of behavior. While there are similarities, there are also several differences, including conflicts in assumptions about continuity in the definition processes and about the awareness of the actor of the operation of these processes. This paper spells out each of the similarities and differences between the state activating approach of expectation states theory and symbolic interactionism. It does not draw any conclusion about whether expectation states theories are “really” based on symbolic interactionism or not. However, it does indicate that these theories are probably more closely related to Simmel's form of interactionism than to Blumer's version.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Theories in the expectation states theoretical research program are often seen as based on the orienting strategy of symbolic interactionism. Certainly there are similarities. For example, both consider the actor's definition of the situation central to accounting for behavior. Both emphasize the situational specificity of behavior. While there are similarities, there are also several differences, including conflicts in assumptions about continuity in the definition processes and about the awareness of the actor of the operation of these processes. This paper spells out each of the similarities and differences between the state activating approach of expectation states theory and symbolic interactionism. It does not draw any conclusion about whether expectation states theories are “really” based on symbolic interactionism or not. However, it does indicate that these theories are probably more closely related to Simmel's form of interactionism than to Blumer's version.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 12 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Theories in the expectation states theoretical research program are often seen as based on the orienting strategy of symbolic interactionism. Certainly there are similarities. For example, both consider the actor's definition of the situation central to accounting for behavior. Both emphasize the situational specificity of behavior. While there are similarities, there are also several differences, including conflicts in assumptions about continuity in the definition processes and about the awareness of the actor of the operation of these processes. This paper spells out each of the similarities and differences between the state activating approach of expectation states theory and symbolic interactionism. It does not draw any conclusion about whether expectation states theories are “really” based on symbolic interactionism or not. However, it does indicate that these theories are probably more closely related to Simmel's form of interactionism than to Blumer's version.

Key concepts: Interactionism, Symbolic interactionism, Situational ethics, Epistemology, Sociology, State (computer science), Psychology, Social psychology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Symbolic Interactionism and Expectation States Theory: Similarities and Differences — Research Paper | ScholarLens