Justice, Emotion, and Identity Theory

Abstract

In its current form, identity theory has two slightly different emphases and thus two somewhat different programs of research (Stryker & Burke, 2000). In the work of Stryker and his colleagues (Serpe & Stryker, 1987; Stryker & Serpe, 1982, 1994), the focus is on how social structure in fluences one’s identity and, in turn, behavior. Thoits’ (Thoits, 1983, 1991, 1995) ongoing research also has this emphasis. In the work of Burke and his associates (Burke & Cast, 1997; Burke & Reitzes, 1981, 1991; Burke & Stets, 1999; Cast & Burke, 2002; Stets & Burke, 1996, 2000; Tsushima & Burke, 1999), the emphasis is on the internal dynamics of the self that influence behavior.1 Though there are different emphases, both versions of identity theory assume that persons always act within the context of social structure in which others and themselves are named in that each recognizes the other as an occupant of societal positions or roles (Stryker, 1980).2 Thus,there is the shared view that at the core of an identity is the categorization of the self as an occupant of a role and that within this categorization are the meanings and expectations associated with the role and its performance. This is what is meant by a role identity.3