Confessions of a Recently Outed Social Psychologist: The 2024 Cooley-Mead Award Address

Social psychology and linguistics are two scientific disciplines that deal with human as their principle subject matter. Focusing on where these disciplines meet and how they feed each other, this paper aims to investigate the interdisciplinary contribution of social psychology and linguistics to each other. To achieve this, the contrastive analysis (CA) is applied which is composed of three steps as (1) description; (2) juxtaposition; (3) comparison (Krzeszowski, 1990). This comparative revision reveals that social psychology applies and investigates many fundamental areas in linguistics and particularly benefits from the language as data collection tool and method in the investigation to understand human behavior. Specifically, social psychology discusses the language with its communication aspect to examine and to analyze the human behavior. On the other hand, linguistics benefits from social psychology as it provides insights into the social and behavioral factors. There are some research areas and theories that these disciplines contribute to each other such as communication accommodation theory, speech act theory, expectancy theory, prejudice, politeness, patronizing speech, gender. Such a review is expected to benefit researchers by encouraging a wider view of intersection of these two disciplines and interdisciplinary critical thinking.

I am highly honored to receive the 2002 Cooley-Mead Award, and I want to thank my collaborators, both colleagues and students, who made this possible. I don't have enough time to acknowledge all the people from whom I learned so much and who stimulated the social psychological work that I have done. I would be remiss, however, if I did not mention the people most significant to my work and my development. I owe my colleagues at Stanford-Joe Berger, Sandy Dornbusch, Henry Walker, Buzz Zelditch, and especially Liz Cohen-an immeasurable debt not only for the research in which we were involved but for the hundreds of hours spent discussing issues of theory construction, methodology, and social psychology in general. Creating, testing, and applying social psychology theory takes team efforts, and I was part of a very exciting team. There is a small irony involved in receiving the Cooley-Mead Award since the one question on my PhD written exams that I answered inadequately was the question about Cooley and Mead. That, too, was predictive in a sense because it started me on the path of questioning the prevailing conceptions of theory in sociology. When I came into the field, there was not much of what I would call theory. Today there are many examples. I disagree with my friend Henry Walker (Walker 2000) about the state of theory development, but I understand the basis of our difference. I am looking at theory development relative to where we were when I started in social psychology; he is critiquing theory development relative to where we want to be. I agree with him that we have a long way to go, but the four branches of the expectation states program (Berger, Cohen, and Zelditch 1966; Berger and Conner 1974; Berger et al. 1972; Webster and Sobieszick 1974)-power-dependency theory (Emerson 1972a, 1972b), network exchange theory (Markovsky, Willer, and Patton 1988; Willer and Anderson 1981; Yamagishi, Gilmore, and Cook 1988), identity theory (Stryker and Burke 2000), and affect-control theory (Heise 1999) to cite a few examplestestify to the growth over the last 45 years. I would like to believe immodestly that I, along with my Stanford colleagues, contributed to this growth. I was interested in the theory enterprise even before my first year in graduate school. In fact, I took an MA in psychology from the University of Minnesota because I was attracted by Leon Festinger's (1950) theory of informal social communication. At Minnesota I discovered that I did not look at things the way most psychologists do, so I returned to Harvard for my PhD in sociology, but I was very much a product of the Social Relations Department. Jerome Bruner told me after I had switched to sociology that the boundary areas between fields like psychology and sociology generated the most creative work. I took this seriously, and much of my research was close to this boundary. What no one told me was that working in these boundary areas creates problems of legitimacy. Because I constructed a probability model for the Asch (1951) conformity experiment (B. Cohen 1958,1963; Cohen and Lee 1975), sociologists tended to treat me as a psychologist even though my model was based on the very unpsychological assumption that there were no individual differences among the experimental subjects. I had a hard time convincing people that it is not the phenomenon one studies but the theoretical approach one takes that determines whether one is a sociological social psychologist. The theory enterprise has grown and matured over the last 50 years. Almost everyone now speaks favorably about theory. I am reminded of George Homans' complaint 5 * Direct correspondence to author at cohenb@stanford.edu

The Cooley-Mead Award for career con tributions to social psychology is the highest award given by the social psychological com munity of the American Sociological Association. It is a great privilege and honor to be a part of this award session and to intro duce the 2005 recipient of this award, Professor Cecilia Ridgeway. Cecilia is cur rently the Lucy Stern Professor of Sociology at Stanford University. In this introduction I review the development of her research career and include a few personal observa tions because we have worked together in a variety of ways over the years. Cecilia began her academic life as an undergraduate at the University of Michigan. She enrolled in the University of Michigan at age 16 and received her BA in sociology in 1967, graduating with honors. Michigan, as a center for interdisciplinary research on social psychology, was a major intellectual influ ence. Of particular import to Cecilia's deci sion to major in sociology was an introductory honors course on social psy chology, taught jointly by a psychologist and a sociologist. In that course they reenacted classic studies of conformity and norm for mation by Solomon Asch and Muzafer Sherif. Outside the classroom, Cecilia was among the early wave of those who joined the Students for a Democratic Society, the organization in the vanguard of the student movement of the 1960s. From Michigan, Cecilia went to Cornell to pursue graduate work, and received her MA and PhD in sociology in 1969 and 1972 respectively. A major influence at Cornell was William Lambert (the psychologist); with him she continued to develop her interests in social psychology. At Cornell she developed an interest in the sociological analysis of music, subscribing to the Weberian view that the structure of music reflects the structure of

Trustworthiness

ABSTRACTBehavioral operations research has proliferated greatly over the decade since its first formal review in 2006. The growth of the field warrants an objective mapping of contributions to the literature and the identification of trends. We conduct a systematic review of the literature of behavioral operations and supply chain management (BOSCM) across eight key operations and supply chain management journals, with publication dates through the end of June 2018. Collected articles are categorized into 12 operations contexts as well as emerging topic considerations. Key research trends, theoretical foundations, and methodological choices are discussed in each context. The results show that supply chain management, inventory management, and procurement/auctions have been the most popular operations contexts for BOSCM researchers. The results of our co‐citation analysis shows that the fundamental research areas that have informed and shaped the field include supply chain risk management, marketing, cognitive psychology, and social psychology. Based on these findings and a survey of the most prolific authors in the field, we discuss possible avenues for future research.

I have the pleasure of introducing Glen H. Elder Jr., the 1993 recipient of the CooleyMead Award. The Cooley-Mead Award is given annually by the Section on Social Psychology to recognize lifetime contributions to the intellectual and scientific advancement of sociological social psychology. Glen Elder epitomizes this criterion. Glen's exposure to the Great Depression as a young child in Cleveland, his experiences in the mass mobilization of World War II, and his adjustment to a radical change in family residence from metropolis to the dairy country of northwest Pennsylvania at the beginning of high school fostered a deep sensitivity to, and interest in, large-scale drastic social change on people's lives. Glen received a BS degree at Pennsylvania State University in 1957, an MA at Kent State University in 1958, and his PhD at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill in 1961. His first academic appointment was as an assistant professor at the University of California, Berkeley (1962) and as a research associate at Berkeley's Institute of Human Development. Glen returned to North Carolina in the late 1960s and was advanced to full professor in 1971. In 1977 he accepted a short research appointment at Boys Town, Nebraska to obtain the research time required by the heavy demands of longitudinal research. In 1979 Glen moved to a teaching and research position at Cornell. In 1984 he returned once again to North Carolina where at present he is Howard W. Odum Distinguished Professor of Sociology, research professor of psychology, and research fellow at the Carolina Population Center. In a recent article Elder noted that nearly every one of his mentors was trained at the University of Chicago. Working first with Charles Bowerman at North Carolina and later with John Clausen and Harold Wilensky at Berkeley, Glen came to embrace many of the distinctive features of the early Chicago School, such as awareness of contextual influences, an emphasis on empirical research into people and groups in their natural ecology, attention to the historical perspective, and focus on the concrete problems of a rapidly changing society. Although issues of social change and influence were prominent in Elder's early work on adolescent development, the large cross-sectional survey of families and youths that formed the basis for these studies severely restricted attention to temporal considerations (both historical and lifetime). Glen challenged and altered these limitations during his appointment at Berkeley's Institute of Human Development. There he worked with longitudinal studies covering 50 years, all within a dramatically changing world. Glen's pioneering work with these longitudinal data led to the publication of his groundbreaking monograph, Children of the Great Depression (Elder 1974). Strongly influenced by Thomas and Znaniecki' s (1918-1920) The Polish Peasant in Europe and America, he constructed a concept of the family as a dynamic household economy and as a link between the macroscopic change of the Great Depression and the life experience of children. The findings of the study and the response of scholars to the work as a whole led to two important developments in Elder's research. First, through interchange with social scientists and historians, Glen undertook a programmatic effort to refine and articulate the life course perspective and its relation to social change. In this perspective the individual is brought into focus according to three different meanings of age: developmental, which refers to the position of individuals in the aging process; social, which concerns the social timing and structure of lives; and historical, which places people in historical context through membership in specific birth cohorts (see Elder 1981). Although the individual is the

I am very pleased and honored to receive the 1991 Cooley-Mead Award. There are many reasons for this. First, this award is a source of pleasure that I can share with my family, particularly with my wife, Theory. Theory has been there through all the steps and stages of my work for the last 25 years, and her support and confidence in that work have been of enormous importance to me as an individual and as a sociologist. I am also pleased because I take this as an evaluation not only of my work but also of the work of a very large number of colleagues and co-workers. It is not possible for me to list the work of all those who have played active roles in expectation states research. I do want to mention, however, my three Stanford colleagues-Morris Zelditch Jr., Bernard P. Cohen, and Elizabeth G. Cohenwho have been involved in the expectation states program from its earliest phases. Finally, I am pleased by this award when I remember some of the others who have received the Cooley-Mead Award, such as Muzafer Sherif and Robert Freed Bales. These two social psychologists have strongly influenced my own work, and I am pleased to share such an honor with them. I developed my interest in sociology at a very early age-certainly long before I appreciated the diversity that exists on so many different levels in this discipline. Also very early in my career, I became interested in the study of interpersonal or group processes. I especially became intrigued with the idea of constructing theories of social behavior, particularly theories that evolved, that developed, that grew. These two interests-understanding interpersonal or group processes and constructing theories of social behavior that evolve-have been with me my

I discuss how social psychologists can think about identity change as a nested phenomenon. Identity change occurs at the micro level, but it is embedded in meso and macro levels of social reality. I use changes in the religious identity in the United States as an example of how we can conceptualize identity change in this way. This approach enables us to broaden the scope of social psychological work to be more inclusive of the various social forces at all levels of social reality that impact the human processes we study.

When the Social Psychology Section of the American Sociological Association established the annual Cooley-Mead Award for Distinguished Contributions to Social Psychology, the first recipient of the honor was Muzafer Sherif, in 1979. The award was announced in the following terms: The award is intended to recognize persons who have made substantial and lasting contributions to social psychology, particularly from a sociological perspective. Professor Sherif has made important contributions to social psychological theory, to field and laboratory methodology, and to the application of research to social issues.

In this essay we challenge whether current conceptions of optimism, hope, and resilience are complete enough to account for the complexity and nuance of developing and maintaining these in practice. For example, a quick perusal of popular outlets (e.g., Forbes, Harvard Business Review) reveals advice to managers urging them to “be optimistic,” or “be happy” so that these types of emotions or feelings can spread to the workplace. One even finds simple advice and steps to follow on how to foster these types of things in the workplace (McKee; Tjan). We argue that this common perspective focuses narrowly on individuals and does not account for the complexity of resilience. Consequently, it denies the role of context, culture, and interactions as ways people develop shared meaning and reality. To fill this gap in our understanding, we take a social constructionist perspective to understand resilience. In other words, we foreground communication as the primary building block to sharing meaning and creating our worlds. In so doing, we veer away from the traditional focus on the individual and instead emphasise the social and cultural elements that shape how meaning is shared by peoples in various contexts (Fairhurst, Considering Context). Drawing on a communication, discourse-centered perspective we explore hope and optimism as concepts commonly associated with resilience in a work context. At work, leaders play a vital role in communicating ways that foster resilience in the face of organisational issues and events (e.g., environmental crises, downsizing). Following this lead, discursive leadership offers a framework that positions leadership as co-created and as the management of meaning through framing (Fairhurst, Power of Framing). Thus, we propose that a discursive leadership orientation can contribute to the communicative construction of resilience that moves away from individual perspectives to an emphasis on the social. From a discursive perspective, leadership is defined as a process of meaning management; attribution given by followers or observers; process-focused rather than leader-focused; and as shifting and distributed among several organizational members (Fairhurst Power of Framing). By switching from the individual focus and concentrating on social and cultural systems, discursive leadership is able to study concepts related to subjectivity, cultures, and identities as it relates to meaning. Our aim is to offer leaders an alternative perspective on resilience at the individual and group level by explaining how a discursive orientation to leadership can contribute to the communicative construction of resilience. We argue that a social constructionist approach provides a perspective that can unravel the multiple layers that make up hope, optimism, and resilience. We begin with a peek into the social scientific perspective that is so commonplace in media and popular portrayals of these constructs. Then, we explain the social constructionist perspective that grounds our framework, drawing on discursive leadership. Next, we present an alternative model of resilience, one that takes resilience as communicatively constructed and socially created. We believe this more robust perspective can help individuals, groups, and cultures be more resilient in the face of challenges. Social Scientific Perspectives Hope, optimism, and resilience have widely been spoken in the same breath; thus, in what follows we review how each is treated in common portrayals. In addition, we discuss each to point to further implications of our model proposed in this essay. Traditionally taken as cognitive states, each construct is based in an individual or an entity (Youssef and Luthans) and thus minimises the social and cultural. Hope Snyder, Irving, and Anderson define the construct of hope as “a positive motivational state that is based on an interactively derived sense of successful (1) agency (goal-directed energy) and (2) pathways (planning to meet goals)” (287). This cognitive set therefore is composed of the belief in the ability to create strategies toward a goal and the belief that those plans can be realised. Exploring hope can provide insight into how individuals deal with stress and more importantly how they use past experiences to produce effective routes toward goals (Brown Kirschman et al.). Mills-Scofield writing in Harvard Business Review mirrors this two-part hope structure and describes how to integrate hope into business strategy. Above all she emphasises that hope is based in fact, not fiction; the need to learn and apply from failures; and the need to focus on what is working instead of what is broken. These three points contribute to hope by reinforcing the strategies (pathways) and ability (agency) to accomplish a particular goal. This model of hope is widely held across social scientific and popular portrayals. This position, however, does not allow for exploring how forces of social interaction shape either how these pathways are created or how agency is developed in the first place. By contrast, a communication-centered approach like the one we propose foregrounds interaction and the various social forces necessary for hope to be fostered in the workplace. Optimism Optimism centers on how an individual processes the causality of an event (e.g., an organisational crisis). From this perspective, an employee facing significant conflict with his immediate supervisor, for example, may explain this threat as an opportunity to learn the importance of supervisor-subordinate relationships. This definition therefore explores how the individual interprets his/her world (Brown Kirschman et al.). According to Seligman et al. the ways in which one interprets events has its origins in several places: (1) genetics; (2) the environment in the form of modeling optimistic behaviours; (3) environment in forms of criticism; and (4) life experiences that teach personal mastery or helplessness (cited in Brown Kirschman et al.). Environmental sources function as a dialectical tension. On one hand the environment provides productive modeling for optimism behaviours, and on the other the environment, through criticism, produces the opposite. Both extremes illustrate the significance of cultural and societal factors as they contribute to optimism. Additionally, life experiences play a role in either mastery or helplessness. Again, interaction and social influences play a significant part in the development of optimism. Much like hope, due to the attention given to social and interactive forces, the concept of optimism requires a framework rooted in the social and cultural rather than the individual and cognitive. A significant drawback related to optimism (Brown Kirschman et al.) is the danger of unrelenting optimism and the possibility this has on producing unrealistic scenarios. Individuals, rather, should strive to acknowledge the facts (good or bad) of certain circumstances in order to learn how to properly manage automatic negative thoughts (Brown Kirschman et al.). Tony Schwartz writing in Harvard Business Review argues that “realistic optimism” is more than putting on a happy face but instead is more about telling what is the most hopeful and empowering of a given situation (1). Thus, a more interaction-based approach much like the model that we are proposing could help overcome some of optimism’s shortcomings. If the power of optimism is in the telling, then we need a model where the telling is front and center. Later, we propose such a model and method for helping leaders’ foster optimism in the workplace and in their communities. Resilience Resilience research offers several definitions and approaches in attempt to examine the phenomenon. Masten defines resilience as a “class of phenomena characterized by good outcomes in spite of serious threats to adaptation or development” (228). Luthar, Cicchetti, and Becker argue that resilience is “a dynamic process encompassing positive adaptation within the context of significant adversity” (543). Interestingly, resilience and developmental researchers alike have positioned resilience as an individual consistently meeting the expectations of a given society or culture within a particular historical context. Broadly speaking, two central conditions apply toward resilience: (1) the presence of significant threat or adversity; and (2) the achievement of positive adaptation (Luthar, Cicchetti, and Becker. Masten goes on to argue that resilience is however ordinary and naturally occurring. That is, the adaptive systems required during significant threat are already present in individuals and is not solely retained by a select few. Masten et al., argues that resilience does not come “from rare and special qualities, but from the operations of ordinary human systems in the biology and psychology of children, from the relationships in the family and community, and from schools, religions, cultures, and other aspects of societies” (129). Based on this, the emphasis of resilience should be within adaptive processes, such that are found in supportive relationships, emotion regulation, and environment engagement (Masten et al.), rather than on individuals. Of these varied interpretations of resilience, two research designs drive the academic literature— outcome- and process-based perspectives (Kolar). Those following an outcome-focused approach tend to concentrate on functionality and functional behaviour as key indicators of resilience (Kolar). Following this model, cognitive states such as composure, assurance, and confidence are examples of resilience. By contrast, a process-focused approach concentrates on the interplay of protective and risk factors as they influence the adaptive capacity of an individual (Kolar). This approach acknowledges that resilience is contextual and interactive, and is “a shared responsibility between individuals, their families

Networks of trust relations often emerge under conditions of uncertainty or risk to facilitate social exchange. Under some conditions, such networks represent a form of social capital that can be mobilized in support of general social cooperation in the society. Under other conditions, however, such networks may have negative effects on the degree of social cooperation in the society. To examine these conditions I draw on experimental work on cooperation and trust, as well as recent work on social exchange under conditions of uncertainty and risk. After an introduction, in which I acknowledge those who have been influential in my career, I comment on the implications of this work for recent research on social capital.