house socialstructure&individual 1990

8/3/2019 House SocialStructure&Individual 1990

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/house-socialstructureindividual-1990 1/11



Social PsychologyQuarterly1990, Vol. 53, No. 2, 71-80

Social Structure and the Individual:

Emerging Themes and New Directions*

JAMES S. HOUSEUniversityof Michigan

JEYLANMORTIMERUniversityof Minnesota

By bringing togethera set of papers in the broad social structureandpersonalitytraditionof social psychology, this issue of SPQ seeks to manifestits centralityto social psychology,and vice versa. Thepapers illustratethe utilityand necessityof incorporatingmore carefuland more explicitanalyses of microsocial andpsychological processes into the study of therelationships of macrosocial structures and processes to the thoughts, feelings, andbehaviorof individualactors. Relationshipsbetweensocial stratification bysocioeconomic,gender, racial/ethnic, or age status) and the individual and intersections between thedomainsof work andfamily emergeas centralproblems in the study of social structureandpersonality,and of social psychology,sociology, andpsychology moregenerally.Theseandotheranalyses could benefit rom increasedinterplayamong the diferentfaces or branchesof social psychology and of social psychology with emerging developments n the parentdisciplines. The reemergenceof the study of personality in psychology, especiallyfrom acognitive perspective, the new concern of sociology with micro-macrolinks, increasedintersectionsof biology withsociology andpsychology,and the increased use of life courseperspectivesand longitudinaldata in psychology and sociology are all developments hatcould contributeto, and benefit rom, future advances in the study of social structureandpersonality. Each of these trends suggest the need for more attention to theinterrelationshipsbetween individualsand macrosocial structuresor processes.

More than a decade ago House (1977)identifiedthe study of "psychological sociol-ogy" or "social structureand personality"asone of the threemajorbranchesor "faces" ofthe broad interdisciplinary field of socialpsychology (the others are psychologicalsocial psychology and symbolic interaction-ism). This thirdface of social psychology ischaracterizedby 1) a substantiveand theoret-ical focus on relatingmacrosocialphenomena

to individuals' psychological attributes andbehavior and 2) a methodological penchantfor quantitativebut nonexperimental(oftensurvey) methods. Because of its concernwithmacrosocial structures and processes, thestudy of social structureand personalityliesclose to the center of the discipline ofsociology and has its roots in the worksof thefounders of that discipline, such as Karl

* Authorship s listed alphabetically.This paper andspecial issue reflect equal authorship and specialeditorship.We are indebted to the contributors o thisissue and to Karen Cook, editor of SPQ, and her staff(especially deputy editor Judith A. Howard, managingeditor Pamela J. Oakes, and editorialassistant Jodi A.O'Brien)for initiating his special issue andbringing t tofruition.

Marx, Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, andGeorg Simmel.

This proximity to the center of thediscipline of sociology is simultaneously thesource of the major strengths and the majorlimitationsof the study of social structureandpersonality as a branchof social psychology.The social structureand personalitytraditionfocuses social psychology on major societalphenomena and processes. This focus is

crucial to the continuing vitality of socialpsychological work, and often is overlookedin the more psychological and more interper-sonal concerns of psychological social psy-chology and symbolic interactionism. At thesame time, the more sociological thrust ofwork on social structureandpersonalityoftenmakes it insufficiently microsocial and psy-chological, thus reducingits productive nter-change with the other faces of socialpsychology andthreateningo dissipateit as abranch of social psychology (cf. House198 a; Liska 1977). Thatis, researchrelatingmacrosocialstructuresand processes to indi-vidual psychology and behavior is seen toooften by its producers and consumers assimply an aspect of some subfield ofsociology (e.g., the sociology of medicine, of

71



72 SOCIALPSYCHOLOGYQUARTERLY

work, of gender, or of stratification). Itsconcerns with microsocial and psychologicalprocesses become more implicit than explicit,and hence less adequatethan they could orshould be.

Thus the quality of analyses of socialstructureandpersonality s degradedas theseanalyses come to be separated rom the othertwo faces of social psychology. This separa-tion is detrimental to the development ofsocial psychology both as an interdisciplinaryfield and as a major subfield of its parentdisciplines of sociology and psychology, andhence diminishes those disciplines as well.For example, despite its historical penchant

for things collective and its ambivalencetowardthingsindividualor psychological, thediscipline of sociology recently has experi-enced a resurgenceof interestin the relation-ship between macrosocial and microsocial/individualphenomena (e.g., Alexanderet al.1987; Coleman 1986). In part, the disciplineis rediscoveringthe study of social psychol-ogy and especially of social structure andpersonality, although sociologists, true totheir Durkheimianheritage, still hesitate to

use those terms. We will return ater to waysin which the new interest in macro-microrelations could benefit from, and benefit, thestudy of social structureand personalityand

of social psychology more generally.In agreeing to edit this special issue we

hoped to counterthe tendencies of the studyof social structureand personalityto becomedissipated across branches of sociology anddistanced from the other two faces of socialpsychology. We soughtto bring togethera set

of analyseson social structureandpersonalityunder the aegis of the Social PsychologyQuarterly. n doing so we hopedto render hesocial psychological natureof such analysesmore visible and more explicit (hence im-

proving the quality of these and relatedanalyses of social structureand personality)and to demonstrate hat the studyof macroso-cial phenomena s indispensable o a relevantand vital social psychology. We have beenpleased beyond expectations with the out-

come on both counts.House (1981a) previously suggested three

principles for analyses of the relationshipsbetween macrosocialphenomenaand individ-ual psychological attributesor behavior in

order to make them more explicitly socialpsychological and hence more adequate: 1)delineation of the components of macrosocial

phenomena;2) specification of the proximatemicrosocial stimuli and interactionsthroughwhich such phenomena, or componentsthereof, impinge on individuals, and 3)increasedattention o psychological processes

through which individuals perceive and re-spond to these 'stimuli. The papers in thisissue illustrate clearly the ways in whichgreater concern with one or more of theseprinciplescan illuminateand sharpenanalysisandunderstanding f the relationshipbetweenmacrosocial phenomena and individual atti-tudes and behavior. We will point toexamples in our discussion of the papers.

The papers also show how attention to

major macrosocial and individual phenom-ena, in tandem, can enhance simultaneouslythe development of substantive theory insocial psychology or in its parentdisciplinesand the relevance of social psychology tomajor social problems or concerns. We havearguedelsewhere that a continuingfocus on"major social phenomena or problems . . .having some ultimate applied value" orimportancehas been and continues to be thegreatest stimulus to both integration and

progress in the development of social psy-chology, and of the social sciences moregenerally (House 1977, forthcoming); instudying such phenomena, social stratifica-tion (in terms of socioeconomic status,gender, race, and age) must be central. Wealso have drawn attention o the interrelation-ships among these hierarchical dimensionsandto the need to considersimultaneously heinteractiveeffects of multiple structural ac-tors (e.g., occupationalconditionsandage) to

understand ully individualdevelopmentandchange (Mortimerand Borman 1988). All ofthe papers in this issue focus in varyingdegrees on one or more of these dimensionsof stratification;n doing so, they show howthe studyof social stratificationand of socialpsychology can enhance each other.

SOCIALSTRATIFICATIONAND THE INDIVIDUAL:

COMPONENTS,PROXIMITY,AND PROCESSES

An interestin social stratificationhas longpervaded social psychological work in thefield of social structure and personality.Reflecting the continued strength of thisresearchtradition,all of the papers includedin this special issue addressin some way the



SOCIALSTRUCTUREAND THE INDIVIDUAL 73

manifold implications of social stratification,and particularly ocial class-relatedconditionsof work, for the individual. The preeminenttheme is that position in hierarchies ofstratification, as defined by socioeconomic

level, occupationalposition, gender, andage,has pervasive importancewith respect to abroad range of individual outcomes. In

sometimes similar and sometimes comple-mentary ways, the papers illustrate howcareful social psychological analysis canspecify, explicate, and illuminate what as-pects of stratificationare most consequential,how they come to impinge proximally on theindividual, and through what conditions orprocessesthe effects of stratification remade

more or less intense.

The Componentsof Stratification

The selections in this issue illustrate the

pervasive influences of socioeconomic statuson the individual. Williams examines thepersistent connection between social classlocation and rates of morbidityandmortality.Attentiveto House's (1981a) firstprinciple nunderstanding he effects of social structureon the person, Williams elucidates the manyways in which class position affects thepropensityto become ill. Similarly,Naoi andSchooler, in a replication and extension ofwhat may be consideredthe most long-term,

sustained, and influential investigations inAmerican social psychology (Kohn 1969,1977; Kohn and Schooler 1983), assess theconsequences of occupational self-direction,an important concomitant of class, for

self-directed values, intellectual flexibility,and traditional orientationsamong Japanesewomen. Moen andForest show how differentoccupational levels and conditions of workaffect the physical and mental well-being offemale and male Swedish workers.Gecas andSeff investigatevariation n the magnitudeofthe relationship between social class andself-esteem, which they view as dependentonthe psychological processes of centralityandcompensation.Finally,Morganand Schwalbe

suggest that a lack of perceived self-competence with respect to the managementof political and economic institutions isrelated to subordinate positions in thosehierarchies.

Parcel and Menaghanextend investigationof the effects of occupational status andconditions on the individual intergeneration-

ally by considering the consequences ofmothers' social class location and associatedworkconditions for children'sverbal facility.Their study reflects a longstanding sociologi-cal interest n the mechanismsthatperpetuate

inequality across generations (Gecas 1979;Kerckhoff 1989; Kohn 1969; MortimerandKumka 1982; Mortimer, Lorence, andKumka 1986; Sewell and Hauser 1975).Wiltfang and Scarbecz present a secondanalysis showing the significance of parents'social class position for their children. Theynote the importance of what they callnontraditionalndicators of family socioeco-nomic position for adolescents' self-evalua-tion.

Socioeconomic status, often indexed byoccupational position, is a most salientmanifestation of social stratification. Socialinequality is also expressed, however, ingenderdifferencesin social structuralocationthat have major implications for resource

acquisition, interpersonalrelationships, andindividualfunctioning. The impact of genderstratificationon the individualis a prominentfocus of this special issue. Moen and Forestexamine the difficulties thatemployedwomenencounter n managingthe work-family nter-face, problems attributable argely to theirsubordinateposition in both work and familyinstitutions. The authors, however, reportevidence that in Swedish society the "gendergap" in distress is declining in magnitude.They also show that some workplace sup-ports, recentlyinstituted n Sweden to relievethe pressures of simultaneous work andparenting, significantly diminish women's

levels of distress. Differences by gender andoccupational level in the effects of workersupports ndicate the complexity of structuralinfluences on the individual. Parcel andMenaghan likewise examine the problemsfaced by employed women in integratingemploymentwith parenthood,particularlyhedifficulty in providing the kinds of stimula-tion and interaction with the child thatpromoteoptimal intellectualdevelopmentandprovide the requisite foundation for school

achievement.Naoi and Schooler assess whether work

conditionshave similar or differenteffects onmen's and women's psychological function-ing in diverse national contexts. They findpronouncedsimilarity,indicatingthe salutaryeffects of self-direction for both gendersregardless of nationality. In addition, how-




ever, they note significantgender differencesin the consequences of bureaucratic mploy-ment in Japan;these differences arise fromthe varying structural locations and theconcomitant problems encountered by men

and by women in large formal organizations.Age is another majoraxis of stratification

(Riley 1988a) whose pervasive influence onthe individual s reflectedin this issue. Socialstructural nfluences, such as those encoun-tered at work, vary for persons of differentage; these persons, in turn, may be differen-tially responsive to such influences (Lorenceand Mortimer 1985; Mortimer and Borman1988). Moen and Forest, as well as Parceland Menaghan, focus on the particularwork-familypressuresassociated with the lifestage of parenthood.The papers by Wiltfangand Scarbecz and by Parcel and Menaghanremind us that the components of socialstratificationwhich influence adolescents andchildren may be quite different from thosewhich affect adults. Naoi and Schoolerreportthat in Japan, young people experiencegreaterdistressthan do older people.

Although the articles in this special issue

representa wide rangeof important tructuraldomains, such a small number of paperscanoffer only a sample of the many possibilitiesfor analysis of the relationships betweensocial structureand the individual in highlydifferentiatedand culturallydiverse contem-porarysocieties. For example, the dimensionof race/ethnicityis not the central focus ofanyof the paperspresentedhere, even thoughit is a major basis of stratification andinequality throughout he world. Religion, a

majorinterestin earlieryears, (Lenski 1961;Weber 1958), is not mentionedin this issue,nor is it a prominent focus of contemporaryresearch in social structureand personalitymore generally.

Socioeconomic position, gender, and age,as well as race, religion, and other majordesignators of structurallocation, serve toplace individuals in a particular societalcontext at a single point in time. Individualsalso may be located in broad macrostructures

definedby nation(Bronfenbrenner 970) andhistorical period (Elder 1974). In fact,comparisons across time and place-whichmay presentthe broadestrangeof variation n

independent,dependent,andinterveningvari-ables-often allow for the fullestrevelationofthe strength and pervasiveness of socialstructural nfluence. Naoi and Schooler, in

theircross-nationalreplication study, investi-gate the generalizabilityof the effect of socialclass on individualpsychologicalfunctioning.They assess whether conditions of work,associated with social stratificationposition,

have similar or different effects on Japanesewomen's self-directed values and intellectualflexibility, in comparison to those exhibitedby American men and women, Polish men,and Japanese men. Because self-directednessis not valued culturally for Japanesewomen,examining the effects of work on thispsychological construct provides a particu-larly cogent test of the influence of self-direction.

Moen and Forest take advantage of a"natural xperiment" n Sweden-the institu-tion of severalpolicies designed to amelioratethe distressof working parents-to study theexperienceof threehistoricalcohorts definedby the birth of the first child. Given theuniversality of problems at the interface ofwork and family in modem (and moderniz-ing) societies, social policy makers in othercountriesmay learn much from the Swedishexperience.Moen andForest'sstudy poses an

interestingquestion:whether similarpolicies,instituted in other national (and cultural)settings, would have the same effects in thosecontexts as in Sweden.

In a thirdillustrationof cross-nationalandhistorical variability in the links betweensocial structureand the individual, Williamsamasses datafrom a number of societies andtimes to illustrate the enduring connectionbetween social class position and health.

In its focus on stratificationand inequality

by occupational position, gender, age, andlife stage, and in its considerationof bothcross-nationaland historical variability, thisissue reflects central questions and domainsof study that have preoccupied the classicsociological thinkers(Durkheim1951, 1964;Marx 1964; Simmel 1950), early students of"national character"(Inkeles and Levinson1954), and observersof "cultureandperson-ality" (Spiro 1951), as well as contemporaryinvestigatorsof the effects of social structure

on the individual.Examinationsof individualdifferences in health, mortality, distress,self-conception, values, and intellectual flex-ibility likewise follow and extend long-standingtraditionsof research(House 1981a,1981b;Kohn andSchooler 1983; Mortimeretal. 1986; Rosenberg 1979). The papersmakeexplicit the various links among structural



SOCIAL STRUCTUREAND THE INDIVIDUAL 75

dimensions and reveal the complexity of thedirect, indirect, and interactive pathwaysthroughwhich distinctive structuraldomainscan influence the individual. For example,Moen and Forest show that historicalchange

can have different mplicationsfor individualsdependingon theirposition in highly gender-stratified work and family institutions. Naoiand Schooler find thatorganizational tructure(bureaucratization) nteracts with gender inproducingdifferences in distress.

TheProximal Conditionsof Stratification

It is not sufficient merely to documenttherelationshipsbetween structuralpositions (oreven components thereof) and personal at-tributes. To advance our understandingofcausal processes, we must understand theproximalconditions or stimulithroughwhichstructuralpositions influence the individual.The authorsof these papershave heeded this"proximityprinciple"very closely.

Williams's article illuminatesthe multiplecomponents of class and shows the diverseproximal avenues through which socioeco-

nomic position influences health. That is,social class location affects the propensitytobecome ill in many ways, because of itsimportance n determining ndividuals' place-ment in numerous institutional sectors, inprovidingdifferentialaccess to resources,andin influencing manifold attitudes,behaviors,and ways of thinking. Williams focuses onthe mediating proximal influences related tosocial ties, stress and coping, and healthbehaviorsand attitudes.The lifestyle factors

that influence health are conceptualized ascollective reactions to proximal conditions:"the patternedresponse of social groups tothe realities and constraints of the externalenvironment." Williams's paper makes theessential point that even if changes in socialpolicy, designed to ameliorate particularproximalconditions, were to be effective, therelationshipbetween social class and healthmight not be eradicatedbecause it operatesthroughso many diverse pathways.

Four other papers examine conditions ofwork that mediate the effects of social classon the person. Naoi and Schooler investigatethe psychological consequences of occupa-tional self-direction, ndexedby routinization,substantive complexity, and closeness ofsupervision.Gecas and Seff examine occupa-tional prestige and job complexity and find

that these factors have different implicationsfor self-esteem, depending on the psycholog-ical centrality of work. Moen and Forestassess hours of work as a proximalconditionof work that influences individual distress.

They also investigate the permissibility oflong-termand short-term eaves of absence-proximalwork attributes hat vary by hierar-chical position in the firm as well as bygender. Again as an illustration of thecomplexity of the processes through whichstructural conditions influence the person,these conditions were found to interactwithgender, with one another, and with occupa-tional level in theireffects on distress.

ParcelandMenaghan nvestigate the moth-ers' occupational task complexity and workhours as mediating the influence of socialclass origin on the child's verbal facility.They find a curvilinearrelationshipbetweentime and work and the criterion, such that themother'sworkingparttime (21-34 hours) hasa positive influence on the child's verbalfacility, whereasworking more than 41 hourshas a negative effect. They also examinewhetherfeaturesof the home environmentare

proximalreflectionsof structuralnequality nthe workplace, thus mediating the effect ofmaternal working conditions on the child'sverbalfacility.

Wiltfang and Scarbecz study concomitantsof social class location thatthey believe to bemoreproximal(affectingthe adolescent'slifemore directly and more immediately) thanindicatorsused more commonly to referencesocial class position. In keeping with theirexpectations, they find that these more

proximal influences, such as neighborhoodquality, the family's welfare status, and thefather's unemploymentstatus, influence ado-lescents' self-evaluation.

Microsocial and Psychological Processes

Finally, the papers address House's thirdprinciple in linking social structure withpersonality-the need to take microsocial andpsychological processes into accountin order

to understandfully the causal mechanismsthroughwhich social structure nfluences theindividual. Morgan and Schwalbe call forgreater interchange between theory and re-search on social cognition and on socialstructure; n their view, sociological socialpsychologists, including students of socialstructureandpersonality,shouldplay a major



76 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGYQUARTERLY

role in promoting such an interchange. Inother words, these authors ask for moresophisticated microsocial and psychologicalanalyses of the processes linking social

structureswith individuals.

The contributors o this issue use relation-ships between social stratification and theself-concept to illustratehow recent psycho-logical analysisof social cognition can inform

analyses of social structureand personality,and vice versa. Specifically, they suggest that

self-concepts or schemas may play a centralrole in the social process through which

systems of social stratificationare maintained(because membersof subordinate trataviewthemselves as less deservingthan do members

of superordinate trata) and also are changed(if the self-conceptsof personsin subordinatestrata can be changed). Naoi and Schoolerprovide an example of this process in theirsuggestion that the less self-directed workroles of Japanesewomen tend to reinforce thewomen's acquiescenceto a subordinateposi-tion in the stratificationsystem of Japanesesociety. Conversely, increasing labor forceparticipation,especially in more self-directed

roles, may leadto changes in values and

self-concept that will increase pressures forsocial change. This is an importantarea forfuture research; it is a matter of specialinterest because it suggests how individual

psychological attributes and behavior canaffect social structure, as well as viceversa-an issue to which we returnbelow.Beyond the realm of stratification,Morganand Schwalbe provide other insightful illus-trations of the ways in which analyses of

social structure and social cognition caninform and benefit each other.Gecas and Seff and WiltfangandScarbecz,

following the lead of Rosenbergand Pearlin

(1978), show that increased attention to

microsocial and psychological processes can

help to explain why the relationshipbetween

social class and self-esteem is weak on

average. Gecas and Seff find that the impactof different domains of social stratificationand social life on self-esteem varies directly

with the centrality or importance of thosedomains to the person. Further, as the

centrality and the impact of one domainincrease, those of others may decrease. The

authorssuggest, although they do not show

definitively, that such variationsin centralityare determined by the self-esteem motive(which seeks to make more central those

domains of action which are most favorable oself-esteem) and by the tendency of domainswhich permit greater personal agency orcontrolto be more central.

Without directly measuring salience or

centrality, Wiltfang and Scarbecz propose(and find) that those indicatorsof position inthe stratification system which are moresalient to the lives of adolescents (e.g.,quality of neighborhood or residence, aparent's employment or welfare status) areassociated more strongly with their self-esteem thanare less proximaland less salientindicators such as parental education oroccupation.

Such attention to microsocial and psycho-logical process is less evident in other areas.Williams notes the need for increasedanaly-ses of this sort in understandinghow, why,and when social stratificationaffects health.Moen and Forest show that women more thanmen seem to have takenadvantageof, and tohave benefited from, changes in Swedishsocial and organizationalpolicies designedtosupportworking parents. Understandingwhythis is the case will require greater under-standingof the microsocial and

psychologicalprocesses through which such social policiescome to affect, or not to affect, individualthought, feeling, and behavior. Moen andForest's work, along with that of Parcel andMenaghanand of Gecas and Seff, illustratesthe increasing attention being given to thelinks between workand family. This attentionfocuses especially on the growing problemofhow single parentsand dual-workercouplescope, and are helped to cope, with the

conflicts between work and family life(Cherlin 1988; Mortimerand London 1984;G. Sorensen and Mortimer1988). The workpresentedin this issue provides an abundantcontext for futureanalyses of such issues.

DIRECTIONSFOR THEFUTURE

In sum, the set of papersassembled in thisissue suggests how and why the relationshipof macrosocial phenomena to individual

psychological attributesand behavior is animportant and promising domain for thedevelopmentof theory and research in socialpsychology, as well as in sociology andpsychology more generally. The papers in-cluded here focus on problems of greatimportance o individualsand to the society atlarge. How we deal individuallyand collec-




tively with problems such as the psychosocialdeterminantsof health, the relationship be-tween work and family, and the socialpsychological development of children andadolescentswill influence stronglyour future

well-being as individuals, organizations,andsocieties. Underlyingthese and other criticalissues is the problemof how we will address,individually and collectively, the diverseimplicationsand problemsof social stratifica-tion, as manifested in socioeconomic posi-tion, gender, age, and race. Contrary o theprotestations of some disciplinary purists,these issues can be understoodand dealt withadequatelyonly throughsocial psychologicalanalyses, such as those presentedhere.

Attention to the reciprocalrelationship of

these major macrosocial phenomena withindividualpsychology and behaviorprovidesan important avenue for integrating andimproving social psychological theory andresearch of all varieties. The Morgan andSchwalbe paper in particular shows how

simultaneousconcerns with social structure(characteristic of the social structure and

personality face of social psychology), mi-

crosocial dynamics (characteristicof sym-bolic interactionism),and psychological pro-cesses (characteristicof psychological socialpsychology) can enrich our understanding fall of these phenomena. Thus analyses ofmacrosocialstructureand personalitymust be

grounded in microsocial and psychologicaltheoryandresearch,and analysesof microso-cial and psychological phenomenamust takeaccountof the largermacrosocialcontext.

Just as this collection of papers illustrates

the promiseof research n social structure ndpersonality,and shows the necessaryconnec-tion of such research to the other faces ofsocial psychology as well as to the parentdisciplines of sociology and psychology, it

also suggests areas for future work. Several

possible areas of developmentremain to beactualized.

Contemporaryworkin psychologicalsocial

psychology has great potential to enrich the"personality"domain of social structureand

personality.The dominantconcerns of cogni-tive psychology-prototypes, scripts, andschemas, as well as informationprocessingand memory encoding and retrieval-offernew targets for social psychological analysisthat may be linked to macrostructural eali-ties. Moreover, closer connections betweenthese two faces may help to address what

some observers consider to be a seriousdeficiency of work in social structure andpersonality.Investigations n this realmsome-timeshave been accusedof treating ndividualattributes n a disconnected, piecemeal fash-

ion without regardto the dynamic organiza-tion of personality or the interrelatednessofindividualpsychological traits.

Awareness of recent developments inpsychological social psychology may directsociological social psychologists' attentiontolinks between important psychological at-tributesandmay promote a betterunderstand-ing of such links. Moreover, investigationsbysociological social psychologists may revealthat these psychological interrelationships resubject to social structural influence. Forexample, Morganand Schwalbe suggest thatmacrostructural placement determines roleidentities, which in turn influence otherpsychological phenomena, such as informa-tion processing. Mortimer and Lorence(1989) recently investigated the relationshipbetweenjob satisfactionandjob involvement.Although both satisfaction and involvementwere foundto be influencedby experiencesof

autonomy in the workplace, the authorsinterpretedheir independentconnection(thatis, the effect of satisfaction on involvementthat remains after taking into account theircommon dependenceon conditions of work)in terms of the operation of cognitiveself-schemas (as well as theorizing in sym-bolic interactionism about the hierarchy ofrole identities).

In parallel fashion, investigators of therelationships between social structure and

personalityshould watch developments n theparentdiscipline of sociology for cues as tomajor lines of social structuraldemarcationthat could have significant implications forthe individual. For example, Kerckhoff(1989) urges the integrationof the structuralanalysis of mobility (in sociology) with thework and personality tradition (in socialpsychology). Burgeoning sociological re-search on economic differentiation(e.g., oneconomic segmentation, internal labor mar-

kets, vacancy chains, career ines, and relateddevelopments)has occurredin tandem withgreat interestamong sociological social psy-chologists in the psychological repercussionsof conditions and experiences in the work-place. Researchers in the latter tradition,however, have not addressed directly theinfluence of position in the "network of




differentiallyaccessible and facilitative path-ways" (Kerckhoff1989, p. 21) of mobility inthe individual, nor have they examined thepsychological antecedents of placement in

such pathways.

Sociological and psychological social psy-chology need to continue their growingrapprochementwith each other and withparallel movements within their parent disci-plines (Pettigrew, Stephan, and Stephanforthcoming).As in earlierdays, this relation-shipwill be promotedby a concertedfocus onsignificant social phenomena. The reemer-gence of sociologists' interest in the "micro-macro link" provides an opportunity forrelatingsocial psychology more closely withmainstreamsociology. This potentialhas notyet been realized, however. Examinationofrecent writing in this new "micro-macro"school of thought shows almost no recogni-tion of the existence, or the potential utility,of much of the work in social psychology forthe understanding f macro-microphenomena(cf. Alexanderet al. 1987; Coleman 1986).Because of its interestin rationalchoice, thisemergingarea of sociology tends to be more

attentive to work in political science andeconomics than to developments in socialpsychology. Even so, a wide range ofdeterminantsof human action (e.g., values,attitudes,affiliativeand otherneeds, motives,desires, beliefs, and cognitions, as well asmicrosocial dimensions to group process)surelycould enhanceunderstanding f micro-macro links (see Kallenberg 1989; Simpson1989 for pertinentdiscussions with referenceto the sociology and the social psychology of

work). Similarly, much of social psychologyremainsoblivious to this new line of work in

sociology.This lack of connection between much of

social psychology and the new macro-micro

theory in sociology and in other disciplinesmay stem in part from an imbalance inresearch and theory in social structure and

personality and in other areas of social

psychology. (This imbalance is also evidentin the presentcollection of papers.) That is,

the predominant approach in theory andresearchon social structureand personality,and in social psychology more generally,hasbeen to analyze when, how, and why socialstructureinfluences individuals. Much lessattention has been paid to how individualsmay influence social structure House 1981a;Turner 1988). The renewed interest in

micro-macro inks, however, focuses heavilyon the potential influence of individuals onthe social order. Hence advocates of micro-macro analysis tend to intersect most oftenwith those areas of social psychology which

are most concerned about how social ordersand structures merge from the interactionofindividuals (e.g., exchange theory and sym-bolic interactionism). Analysts of socialstructureand personality, as well as manypsychological social psychologists, need topay more attention to the reciprocal influ-ence between individuals and social struc-tures and more generally to the intersectionbetween micro-macro analysis and socialpsychology. We have noted above the waysin which some papers, especially that ofMorgan and Schwalbe, are beginning toaddress these concerns. The major politicaland social changes now occurringin EasternEurope provide evidence that individualactors and actions can shape social structureand change. Students of social structureandpersonalityneed to devote more attention tosuch events and to other, less dramaticprocesses through which individuals influ-

ence the social order.In consideringthe ways in which individu-als may shapesocial structuresandprocesses,increased attention must be paid to persons'endogenousattributes.These were consideredearlierthroughconcepts such as basic humannature or basic human needs (e.g., Etzioni1968). More recently they have been exam-ined throughrenewed interest n the interplaybetween biological factors and social andpsychological elements in determiningindi-

vidual thought, feeling, and behavior, andhence also in determining he social structuresthat are constitutedby patternsof individualbehavior or action (cf. Barchas 1976; Lo-preato 1984). Properlyused and understood,such approachesdo not seek reductionisticbiological explanationsfor social or psycho-logical phenomena. Rather they recognizethat the biologically given attributesof humanbeings, influencedby evolutionaryprocesses,interact with social and psychological phe-

nomenain producingobservedindividual andsocially patternedthought, feeling, and be-havior. Such approachesremaincontroversialat this point, but must be articulated ncreas-ingly with social psychological analyses ofsocial structure and the individual. Thisarticulationalreadyis occurring n areassuchas gender and parenthood e.g., Rossi 1985)




and criminology and deviance (e.g., Gove1985).

Finally, the empiricalpapersdescribedhereare generally limited to cross-sectional data.The Moen and Forest papersuggeststhe value

of studying social change and individualchange over time. Understandingadequatelythe reciprocalinfluence between macrosocialphenomenaand individual psychological at-tributes and behavior ultimately requireslongitudinal, (and especially multiwave)panel designs, as well as a broader ife courseperspective. The shifts in macrostructuralorganization produced by major historicalevents generate many changes: in statusconfigurationsand roles; in the links between

status positions that constitutethe proximatecareer lines (in work, family, and otherinstitutions) which individuals traverse asthey go throughtheir lives; in the psycholog-ical processes that enable individuals tointerpret nd respondto theirproximatesocialexperiences;and in the structuresof individ-ual psychological phenomena themselves(Mortimer,Finch, and Kumka 1982). At thesame time, alteredways of thinking, feeling,and evaluating, change in the salience ofexperiential domains and in self-referentframeworks, and other attitudinal changesgenerate new personal priorities, decisions,andchoices. They give rise to both individualand collective attempts to alter the moreproximalmicrostructural s well as the moredistal macrostructuralealities.

All of these structural and processualchanges, throughhistoricaland individual ifetime, alter the dynamics of the interrelation-

shipsbetweensocial structure ndthe individ-ual. A life course perspective, sensitive tosuch multilevel historical, macrostructural,career-line,and psychological changes, mustbe applied to the broad scope of substantiveproblems and issues that are of interest tosociological social psychologists. (For anillustrativestudy incorporatingeach of theselevels of analysis, see Spenner 1988. Forother pertinent work see Elder and Caspi1990; Mortimer and Borman 1988; Riley

1988b;Rossi 1985;Schooler andSchaie 1987;A. Sorensen,Weinert, and Sherrod 1986.)

We hope that students of social structureand personalitywill try increasinglyto makeuse of existing longitudinaldataor to generatenew longitudinaldata sets. As we approachthe year 2000, we appear o be enteringa newperiod of significant social change in our

society and abroad. Through longitudinalanalysis of macrostructural,microsocial, andpsychological phenomena and of the interre-lationships among them, we can achieveclearer understandingboth of the impact of

social structureon individual and the ways inwhich individuals come to influence thenatureof social structure.

REFERENCES

Alexander, Jeffrey C., Bernhard Giesen, RichardMunch, and Neil J. Smelser. 1987. TheMicro-MacroLink. Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress

Barchas, Patricia R. 1976. "Physiological Sociology:Interface of Sociological and Biological Processes."

Annual Review of Sociology 2:299-333.Bronfenbrenner,Urie. 1970. Two Worldsof Childhood:

U.S. and U.S.S.R. New York: Russell Sage Founda-tion.

Cherlin, Andrew (ed.). 1988. The ChangingAmericanFamily and Public Policy. Washington, DC: UrbanInstitutePress.

Coleman, James S. 1986. "Social Theory, SocialResearch and a Theory of Social Action." AmericanJournalof Sociology 91:1309-35.

Durkheim, Emile. 1951. Suicide. New York: Free Press.. 1964. The Division of Labor in Society,

translatedby GeorgeSimpson. New York: Free Press.

Elder, Glen H., Jr. 1974. Children of the GreatDepression. Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.

Elder, Glen H., Jr. and Avshalom Caspi. 1990."StudyingLives in a ChangingSociety: Sociologicaland Personological Explorations." Pp. 201-47 inStudyingPersons and Lives, edited by A.I. Rabin,Roberta A. Zucker, and Susan Frank. New York:Springer-Verlag.

Etzioni, Amitai. 1968. "Basic HumanNeeds, Alienationand Inauthenticity."American Sociological Review33:870-85.

Gecas, Viktor. 1979. "The Influence of Social Class onSocialization." Pp. 365-404 in ContemporaryTheo-

ries about the Family, Volume 1, edited by WesleyBurr,ReubenHill, F. IvanNye, and IraL. Reiss. NewYork:Free Press.

Gove, WalterR. 1985. "The Effect of Age and Genderon Deviant Behavior:A BiopsychosocialPerspective."Pp. 115-44 in Gender and the Life Course, edited byAlice S. Rossi. New York: Aldine.

House, James S. 1977. "The Three Faces of SocialPsychology." Sociometry40:161-77.

_ 1981a. "Social Structureand Personality." Pp.525-61 in Social Psychology: Sociological Perspec-tives, edited by M. Rosenbergand R.H. Turner.NewYork: Basic Books.

. 1981b. Work, Stress and Social Support.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

House, James S. Forthcoming. "Sociology, Psychologyand Social Psychology (and Social Sciences)." InUnifyingSocial Psychology (tentativetitle), edited byThomasPettigrew, Cookie White Stephan,andWalterStephan,New York:Springer-Verlag.

Inkeles, Alex and Daniel Levinson. 1954. "NationalCharacter:The Studyof Modal Personalityand SocialSystems." Pp. 975-1020 in Handbook of Social




Psychology, edited by G. Lindzey. Cambridge, MA:Addison-Wesley.

Kallenberg, Arne. 1989. "Linking Macro and MicroLevels: Bringingthe WorkersBack into the Sociology

of Work." Social Forces 67: 582-92.

Kerckhoff, Alan C. 1989. "On the Social Psychology of

Social Mobility Processes." Social Forces 68:17-25.Kohn, Melvin L. 1969. Class and Conformity:A Study n

Values. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.

. 1977. Class and Conformity: A Study in Values.

2nd ed. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Kohn, Melvin L. and Carmi Schooler, with the

collaboration of Joanne Miller, Karen A. Miller,

Carrie Schoenbach, and Ronald Schoenberg. 1983.

Workand Personality:An Inquiry into the Impact of

Social Stratification. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Lenski, Gerhard. 1961. The Religious Factor. Garden

City, NY: Doubleday.

Liska, Alan E. 1977. "The Dissipationof Sociological

Social Psychology." AmericanSociologist 12:2-8.Lopreato, Joseph. 1984. Human Nature and Biocultural

Evolution. Winchester, MA: Unwin Hyman.

Lorence, Jon and Jeylan T. Mortimer. 1985. "Job

Involvementthroughthe Life Course: A Panel Study

of ThreeAge Groups."AmericanSociologicalReview50:618-38.

Marx, Karl. 1964. "Capitalismand HumanAlienation."

Pp. 167-72 in Karl Marx: Selected Writings in

Sociology and Social Philosophy, edited by T.B.

Bottomore. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mortimer, Jeylan T. and KathrynM. Borman (eds.).

1988. WorkExperience and Psychological Develop-mentThrough he Life Span. Boulder:Westview.Mortimer, Jeylan T., Michael D. Finch, and Donald

Kumka. 1982. "Persistenceand Change in Develop-

ment: The MultidimensionalSelf-Concept." Pp. 264-

313 in Life-SpanDevelopmentand Behavior, Volume

4, edited by Paul B. Baltes and Orville G. Brim, Jr.

New York:Academic Press.

Mortimer, Jeylan T. and Donald S. Kumka. 1982. "A

Further Examination of the 'Occupational Linkage

Hypothesis.' " Sociological Quarterly 23 (Winter):3-16.

Mortimer, Jeylan T. and Jayne London. 1984. "The

Varying Linkagesof WorkandFamily." Pp. 20-35 inWork and Family: Changing Roles of Men and

Women, edited by Patricia Voydanoff. Palo Alto:

Mayfield.

Mortimer, Jeylan T. and Jon Lorence. 1989. "Job

Satisfaction and Job Involvement: Disentangling a

Deceptively Simple Relationship."Social Psychology

Quarterly52:249-65.

Mortimer, Jeylan T., Jon Lorence, and Donald S.

Kumka. 1986. Work, Family, and Personality: Tran-sition to Adulthood. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Pettigrew, Thomas, Cookie White Stephan, and WalterStephan. Forthcoming. Unifying Social Psychology(tentativetitle). New York:Springer-Verlag.

Riley, MatildaW. 1988a. "A Sociology of Age." Pp.

243-90 in Handbook of Sociology, edited by N.J.Smelser. NewburyPark,CA: Sage.. (ed.). 1988b. Social Structures and Human

Lives. Beverly Hills: Sage.Rosenberg, Morris. 1979. Conceiving the Self. New

York:Basic Books.Rosenberg, MorrisandLeonardI. Pearlin. 1978. "Social

Class and Self-Esteem among Childrenand Adults."AmericanJournalof Sociology 84(1):53-77.

Rossi, Alice S. 1985. Gender and the Life Course. NewYork:Aldine.

Schooler,Carmi and K. WarnerSchaie. 1987. CognitiveFunctioningandSocial Structureover theLifeCourse.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Sewell, William H. and Robert M. Hauser. 1975.Education,Occupation,and Earnings:Achievement nthe Early Career. New York:AcademicPress.

Simmel, Georg. 1950. "The Metropolis and MentalLife." Pp. 409-24 in TheSociologyof Georg Simmel,editedby KurtH. Wolff. New York: Free Press.

Simpson, Ida Harper. 1989. "The Sociology of Work:Where Have the Workers Gone?" Social Forces67:563-81.

Sorensen, Aage B., Franz E. Weinert, and Lonnie R.Sherrod. 1986. Human Development and the LifeCourse:MultidisciplinaryPerspectives.Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Sorensen, Glorian and Jeylan T. Mortimer. 1988."Implicationsof the Dual Roles of Adult Women forTheir Health." Pp. 157-97 in WorkExperience andPsychological Development through the Life Span,edited by Jeylan T. Mortimerand Kathryn Borman.Boulder:Westview.

Spenner,KennethI. 1988. "Occupations,WorkSettingsand the Course of Adult Development:Tracing theImplications of Select Historical Changes." Pp.243-85 in Life Span Development and Behavior,Volume 9, edited by Paul B. Baltes, David L.Featherman,and Richard M. Lemer. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Spiro, M.E. 1951. "Culture and Personality: TheNational History of a False Dichotomy." Psychiatry14:19-46.

Turner,Ralph H. 1988. "Personality n Society: SocialPsychology's Contribution to Sociology." SocialPsychology Quarterly51:1-10.

Weber,Max. 1958. TheProtestantEthic and theSpiritofCapitalism,translatedby Talcott Parsons.New York:Scribners.

JAMES S. HOUSE is Professor and Chair of Sociology at the University of Michigan. His currentresearch ocuses on the impact of psychological factors on health and aging.

JEYLAN T. MORTIMER is Professor of Sociology and Director of the Life Course Center at theUniversity of Minnesota. Her current research examines the implications of work experience inadolescence for developmental,socio-economic, and mentalhealth-relatedoutcomes.

house socialstructure&individual 1990

Documents