social psych and economic sociology
Why do we see little to no cross-fertilization between social psychology (especially the sociological variety) and economic sociology? It seems strange that there is so little overlap given that these areas are interested in similar kinds of outcomes and phenomena, e.g., valuation, status, power. Sociological social psychology studies the bread and butter concepts of sociology – status and identity, for example – while economic sociology tends to use bread and butter concepts to explain market phenomena. Yet strangely there is little cross-citation between the subfields. It’s almost as if they don’t know the other exists.
I think the potential for theoretical cross-fertilization is quite high though. Here are some places where social psychology and economic sociology ought to converge.
- Theories of value – Shane Thye‘s excellent research on value shows how value gets constructed through association with status characteristics. Thye completes the trifecta by, in turn, demonstrating that higher valuation gives high status players power in dependence relations.
- Exchange theory - exchange theory is a way of understanding social relationships that emphasizes the emergence of social structure as the result of ongoing exchanges and dependencies between actors. Although there seem to be obvious connections between network analysis and exchange theory the two rarely talk to each other. Strangely, exchange theory has provided little leverage in explaining market relationships.
- Affect control – affect control theory posits that individuals have to square their actions with the emotions they experience. Individuals try to emote in appropriate ways but when they don’t, they change the way they view their situations. Strangely, economic sociologists have very little to say about the emotional experience of markets, although our own experiences suggest that affect plays an important role in shaping individual market relations.
- Symbolic interaction – Status is a big deal in economic sociology but reputation gets relatively little airplay. My sense is that this is because reputation is a much more subjective construct while status is positional. Gary Alan Fine’s work on reputational entrepreneurship, however, seems highly relevant to how market actors attempt to change their relations with other market actors through impression management. Where is the front stage and back stage of markets anyway?
This post isn’t meant to say that there is absolutely no contact between economic sociology and sociological social psychology (I await your comments pointing out the areas of convergence that I’m overlooking). Tim Hallett is bringing symbolic interaction to institutional theory. E-Z has a new project on status with two prominent social psychologists, Cecilia Ridgeway and Shelly Correll. Resource dependence theory was spawned by Emerson’s power dependence theory. But the possibilities for future cross-fertilization seem pretty open. Bridging the two would seem to be a goldmine for enterprising grad students.
Welcome to my dissertation. I’m using social identity theory, identity theory (structural symbolic interaction), to argue that the creation of business networks depends on identification. However, this is a special case because I’m also bridging this with the creation of pan-ethnic identities to study Latino/a entrepreneurs. I also have studied how social psychological sources of commitment to an identity results in the commitment to belonging to business networks and how this increases perception of network benefits. I presented early findings at ASA, but need to revisit some of the analysis (there was more to the paper than discussed here).
What is overlooked in SSP is the network foundation of identities which was most forcefully put forth by Stryker (SSI). A return to his early formations, rather than Burke’s identity theory or Heise’s affect control, would be beneficial for both economic sociology and SSP.
pitse1eh
January 17, 2009 at 7:40 pm
pitse1eh – interesting! Any working papers available?
brayden
January 17, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Depends on what you mean by “working.” I have several very rough papers that are all in process. I do have one about impression management techniques in corporations that is under review. The commitment and networks paper can either be given in its full form (with way too much literature review that does not relate because of the purpose for its original composition) or its cannibalized form from ASA. The only thing I have in any shape to be seen for the dissertation is the proposal, which lays out the theory.
I can be reached at pitselehsbackstage@gmail.com.
pitse1eh
January 18, 2009 at 12:23 am
David Zhu a PhD student in Strategy at Michigan has done some work in this area that might interest you. His doctoral committee includes Jim Westphal(chair) and Michael Jensen so I imagine it is very high quality work. A partial description of his work from his website:
“My dissertation studies the social psychology of groups in boards of directors’ strategic decision-making processes. It examines how a fundamental group decision-making bias referred to as group polarization may influence boards’ major strategic decisions (i.e. acquisition premiums, executive compensation, and diversification) and the diffusion of practices through interlock networks. I begin by explaining how directors’ average pre-meeting position tends to reflect the average decision they previously experienced across various boards. The elaborated polarization theory then suggests that board discussions can systematically induce directors to make a collective decision that amplifies their average pre-meeting position. For instance, I suggest that when prior acquisition premiums experienced by directors would lead them to on average support a relatively high premium prior to a board meeting, they tend to approve a focal premium that is even higher; but when prior premiums experienced by directors would lead them to support a relatively low premium prior to a board meeting, they tend to approve a focal premium that is even lower. I also examine how group polarization biases can be attenuated or exacerbated by the influence of the minority (i.e., directors that support a minority position), demographic homogeneity, and board influence over management.”
You can find more about his work at http://sitemaker.umich.edu/davidzhu/hongquan_zhu
JO
January 19, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Hi JO – Thanks for the heads up. My sense is that management research has done a much better job of reaping insights from social psychology, Westphal being a prime example. Even then, most management research is more informed by the psychology version of social psychology than they are by the sociology version. I assume that the reason for this is that psychologists are more prevalent in b-schools than sociologists doing social psychology, giving management PhD students more exposure to psychology.
brayden
January 19, 2009 at 4:05 pm
[...] emotion, but it’s a difficult aspect of market behavior to observe and analyze. Here’s my earlier post on what economic sociology might learn from social [...]
reason, rationality, and emotion « orgtheory.net
February 24, 2009 at 5:19 pm
I am involved in a large project producing an agent-based model of the European Economy. Currently it involves economists and computer scientists. I am interested in making contact with olleagues interested in developing ways of improving the model by using data on individual economic behaviour and decision making which seems to be an area where there is a shortage of information.
We are setting up a consortium to apply for funding from the European Union to examine this issue.
Mike Holcombe
March 4, 2009 at 8:11 pm