Symbolic interactionism The contemporary notion of symbolic interactionism originates from the work of
George Herbert Mead and
Max Weber. In this circular framework, social interactions are considered to be the basis from which
meanings are constructed; meanings that then influence the process of social interaction itself. Many symbolic interactionists see the
self as a core meaning that is both constructed through and influential in social relations. The
structural school of symbolic interactionism uses shared social knowledge from a
macro-level culture,
natural language,
social institution, or organization to explain relatively enduring patterns of social interaction and
psychology at the
micro-level, typically investigating these matters with
quantitative methods. The Iowa School, along with
identity theory and
affect control theory, are major programs of research in this tradition. The latter two theories, in particular, focus on the ways in which actions control mental states, which demonstrates the underlying
cybernetic nature of the approach that is also evident in Mead's writings.
Social structure and personality This research perspective deals with relationships between large-scale social systems and individual behaviors and mental states including feelings, attitudes and values, and mental faculties. Some researchers focus on issues of health and how social networks bring useful social support to the ill. Another line of research deals with how education, occupation, and other components of social class impact values. Some studies assess emotional variations, especially in happiness versus alienation and anger, among individuals in different structural positions.
Structural social psychology Structural social psychology diverges from the other two dominant approaches to sociological social psychology in that its theories seek to explain the emergence and maintenance of social structures by actors (whether people, groups, or organizations), generally assuming greater stability in social structure (especially compared to symbolic interactionism), and most notably assuming minimal differences between individual actors. Whereas the other two approaches to social psychology attempt to model social reality closely, structural social psychology strives for
parsimony, aiming to explain the widest range of phenomena possible, while making the fewest assumptions possible. Structural social psychology makes greater use of formal theories with explicitly stated propositions and scope conditions, to specify the intended range of application.
Social exchange Social exchange theory emphasizes the notion that social action is the result of
personal choices that are made in order to maximize benefit while minimizing cost. A key component of this theory is the postulation of the
"comparison level of alternatives": an actor's sense of the best possible alternative in a given situation (i.e. the choice with the highest net benefits or lowest net costs; similar to the concept of a "
cost-benefit analysis"). Theories of social exchange share many essential features with
classical economic theories, such as
rational choice theory. However, social exchange theories differ from classical economics in that social exchange makes predictions about the relationships between persons, rather than just the evaluation of goods. For example, social exchange theories have been used to predict human behavior in romantic relationships by taking into account each actor's
subjective sense of cost (e.g.,
financial dependence), benefit (e.g.
attraction,
chemistry,
attachment), and comparison level of alternatives (e.g. whether or not there are any viable alternative mates available).
Expectation states and Status characteristics Expectation states theory—as well as its popular sub-theory,
status characteristics theory—proposes that individuals use available social information to form expectations for themselves and others. Group members, for instance, use stereotypes about competence in attempting to determine who will be comparatively more skilled in a given task, which then indicates one's authority and
status in the group. In order to determine everyone else's relative ability and assign rank accordingly, such members use one's membership in social categories (e.g. race, gender, age, education, etc.); their known ability on immediate tasks; and their observed dominant behaviors (e.g. glares, rate of speech, interruptions, etc.). Although exhibiting dominant behaviors and, for example, belonging to a certain race has no
direct connection to actual ability,
implicit cultural beliefs about
who possesses
how much social value will drive group members to "act as if" they believe some people have more useful contributions than others. As such, the theory has been used to explain the rise, persistence, and enactment of
status hierarchies. == Substantive topics ==