Expectation states theory seeks to “explain how inequitable structures emerge and are maintained , and how they are related to other aspects of inequality within a society” (Correll & Ridgeway, 2006, p. 31 ) . The theory ventures into the hierarchies of influence, evaluation, and participation which are precipitated by status structure or the power and prestige structure. The theory can further be said to “seek to explain the emergence of status hierarchies in situations where actors are oriented towards the accomplishment of a collective task or goal” (Correll & Ridgeway, 2006, p. 31 ) . It is prudent to note that task orientation or collective orientation is the scope element of this theoretical construct. In simple terms, the elements above are the conditions under which this theory is premised on. Individuals are said to be collectively oriented when they perceive it necessary and legitimate to take into account each other’s input when finalizing on a task. Task orientation, on the other hand, centers on individuals being focused centrally on finding a solution to a particular problem (Correll & Ridgeway, 2006, p. 31 ) .
I t is prudent to apply it in a real scenario so as to comprehend the theory . In this regard, t he scenario is a recent interaction in a group. The group comprises of seven individuals, three young men (Jay, Frank, Jim and I) and two young ladies (Mary, Jemimah, and Gina). The interaction was ideally centered on a mutual debate in regards the place of women in the society in the 21 st century. With most of us being conversant with sociological concepts, the debate was well-balanced expect for the fact that one of the group members of Hispanic descent, Jim, was more dominant in the debate . This created an anticipation that this particular member was more at home with the discussion and seemed more knowledgeable on the subject . D espite this, I found some of his assertions absurd or far-fetched . The unconscious expectations by the other group members prompted them t o give him more opportunities to contribute and vouch for his arguments as compared to the rest of us.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In expectations theory, these unconscious expectations are denoted as performance expectation states. Once developed, t he performance expectations states shapes the behavior in a manner that may be said to be self-fulfilling. Thus m ost of the contributions of this member to the debate were positively evaluated at the expense of the other group members. For instance, It was noticeable in the group that one of the female contributors, Gina, was shunned. There were lower performance expectations set on her end. This meant that Gina ’s contributions were perceived as non-consequential. Her assertion that women in the 21st century had the right tools to empower themselves was dismissed in favor of the much dominant male member’s views. Disagreements were emanat ing from her comments , which many members deemed unfit. Relative performance expectations brought forth a hierarchy in the group which was non-existent, and that was pegged on participation, influence and evaluation among the group members.
The leader of the group as per the activities and influence was Jim. The rest of the team members were Frank, Mary, Jay, Gina, Jemimah and I. His position came naturally because he was older and was trave l ed as compared to the rest of us. He was also one of the top students in our class which endeared him to many of the lecturers as well as tutors. His confident demeanor and assertive nature made most of the group members revere him as a natural leader. Due to characteristics such as being highly intelligent and well-travelled, he was automatically expected to lead. This was chiefly due to the fact we were not dominant as compared to Jim. U nlike Jim , o ur status characteristics made us look less domineering or not qualified enough to steer the group debate in the direction that it took. As a result, o ur contributions were critical but had less impact because of the dexterity that Jim exhibited since the initiation of the debate to its end.
The observable power and prestige (OPP) within the Expectation States Theory were held in the group. The decision to make Jim leader was brought by the evaluation of several occurrences and scenarios and not just one mere act. Besides his gender, t here are specific characteristics that made Jim the dominant leader . In this regard, social worthiness is often pegged to the male gender as opposed to the female gender . This is partly linked to the patriarchal nature of the society . Jim’s age and well-travelled nature also made it easy for the rest of the group members to attach leadership competence to him . According to Colley and Ridgeway (2006, p.32) “ there are widely shared cultural beliefs about gender that have been shown to include expectations that men are diffusely more competent at most things as well as specific assumptions that men are better at some particular tasks (e.g. mechanical tasks) while women are better at others (e.g. nurturing)”. Further, t he age factor was critical in that it made most of us attach it to experience and respect. This is a standard social norm in many homes and communities , where the elderly lead the younger ones under their wing. Being well-travelled was considered unconsciously as it signaled that Jim had been exposed to more cultures and had encountered new experiences as compared to the rest of the team. Therefore, this automatically communicated that Jim had the latitude in various themes and issues.
The use of status characteristics in establishing the group leader can be well explained using the burden of proof assumption. The premise looks at the way “status characteristics that differentiate actors but are not initially relevant to the performance of the group’s task impact the formation of performance expectations .” (Correll & Ridgeway, 2006, p. 33 ) The first step in the burden of proof is the establishment of a striking characteristic of an individual. In Jim’s case, gender suffices as the salient element. This is followed by sequencing , where the actors in the team come into play. Many of the players have been exposed to the social perception of male dominance. Notably , the female actors in the group do not query Jim’s dominance as they are used to the status generalization associated with the male dominance. The third step is the aggregation which centers on how the “status information with multiple characteristics is combined to form aggregated performance expectations” (Correll & Ridgeway, 2006, p. 33 ) . The different qualities associated with each team member may bring forth inconsistent expectations in the group. However, the salient factors such as age and gender may have contributing weight to the performance expectations. The fourth step is the translation of performance assumptions into behavior. For instance, during the group work, Jim was accorded higher expectations over the rest of the team members . This resulted in more opportunities for him to dominate the engagement and a more positive evaluation on his part. This was in contrast to the treatment accorded to Gina that had low-performance expectations.
The graph theory is used to represent the premises of the status characteristics theory. The graphs are used to draw comparisons between status situations. For a task - focused interaction, diffused status characteristics centers on the attributes that are general and affect the completion of interaction in very many respects. The diffused status may be translated as devoid of the specific inclinations towards certain qualities of interacting individuals.
The graph is known as a signed graph. It links the involved actors or participants to the expected results after task completion. These results may be positive or negative. This is denoted by the series of paths in the graph. Likewise, t he graph represents the status situation for two actor s . In the graph , one diffuse element is represented by D and is salient in the graphical setting. T he positive sign attached to D for actor ƿ shows that ƿ has more value regarding diffused characteristics as compared to o .
The symbol I, on the other hand, represents the expectation of a participant or actor’s general competence. This further means that actor ƿ must have more valued state of D since ƿ ’s general competence leads to higher competence expectations relative to participant o. This shows that higher expectations linked to general competence lead to higher expectations for the groups’ interactive task. In the graph, symbol C denotes the expectation for an actor’s competence about a certain task (Correll & Ridgeway, 2006, p. 35 ) . By focusing on the negative and positive signs attached to C , there is a strong indication that actor ƿ has a higher competence for the task in comparison to actor o. The burden of proof signifies the existence of this path. The salient status characteristic is believed to exist since “it somehow explicitly dissociated from the task at hand. T (+) signifies a successful task result or outcome, T(-) , on the contrary , represents a poor task outcome” (Correll & Ridgeway, 2006, p. 35 ) . This scenario may be observed in an example of a task where two friends engage in a mathematical contest. Th is is a contest between individuals with different specific attributes to preempt both successful and unsuccessful outcomes before and after the interaction .
References
Correll, S. J., & Ridgeway, C. L. (2006). Expectation States Theory. In Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 29-51). Springer US.
