Identities and Self-Verification in the Small Group

Abstract

This research examines the relationship between the meanings contained in one's identity and the meanings attributed to one's behavior by both oneself and others in small-group interaction. The goal is to provide an empirical test of expectations derived from identity theory and from the structural symbolic interaction perspective concerning the link between persons' identities, their behaviors, their own interpretation of their behaviors, and others' interpretations of their behaviors. Of interest are three issues: whether others attribute the same meanings to one's role performance as does the self, whether the meanings attributed both by the self and by others verify (correspond to) the meanings contained in one's identity, and the consequences when these meanings fail to correspond. The results suggest that a shared meaning structure does develop among actors in a small group and allows all members similarly to interpret each other's behavior, and that this shared interpretation tends to verify the group members' identities. In addition, it was found that when discrepancies exist between the meanings of a group member's role performance and the meanings of his or her identity, the group member is less satisfied with his or her role performance in the group. The implications of these results for identity theory are discussed. Both motivation and reflexivity are central components of the identity model as outlined in identity theory (Burke 1991). These two components become even more significant in applying identity theory to individuals in a group, because it is through them that a number of important processes take place. In the group we must account not only for the link between a person's identity and his or her behavior, but also for the maintenance of that link in the presence of other demands on the person's behavior; these other demands take the form of others' behavior and expectations, as well as the situational demands of the group in regard to attaining its goals. Reflexivity and motivation are keys to this account. Identity theory views reflexivity in terms of a control system (Powers 1973) which takes account not only of feedback about the self from the social environment, but also of self-views already incorporated into the identity standard. From a control system perspective, reflexivity is the self's way of taking account of both internal self-standards and external self-relevant feedback from one's current role performance to influence that role performance in ways that make the new self-relevant feedback consistent