Filed under: crazy research ideas | Tags: identity control theory, self check, social capital
A friend from grad school gave me this song. It was from a CD she gave me as a continuation of a challenge to create a CD with your 15 classic songs–songs that have, or you think will, stand the test of time. The new challenge–to give each other 15 songs we thought the other person would like, but didn’t have. Talk about two great sources of productive procrastination. And, with this song, a complete success.
While the pink flamingos crack me up (this is the best youtube version of this song I could find), it’s the lyrics that got me thinking.
Some stupid chick in the checkout line Was paying for beer with nickels and dimes And some old man who clipped coupons Had argued whenever they wouldn't take one All I wanted to was buy some cigarettes But I couldn't take it anymore so I left
I’m sure we all feel this way sometime–ready to kill the people in line. I know I have, and I know Husband has. The solution to this problem has been given to us–the self checkout line.
The self checkout line at your local grocery story (or at Home Depot) is the line where you can scan your own items and, in my experience, bag your own purchases. A consumer study found that self checkout was successful to the tune of $137 billion dollars in 2006. Evidently, this was expected to climb to $525 billion in 2007. I’m not sure though, because I’m unwilling to spend the $1,995 it would cost to self check out a copy of the study from the IHL group.
The study looked at who is more likely to use self checkout (such as those who make over $100,000 a year). The theory? Richer folks travel more and so are used to automated systems. That may be true, but I’m wondering how much that would actually explain selection into a line that would lead you to a cashier or to go it alone. Of course, some of this is time–I probably would not be willing to wait in line while someone was buying beer (or much of anything else) with nickels and dimes when there was a self checker available. But, all else being equal, can we develop a theory of why some choose to go it alone while others prefer the checker? I think so.
Of course I’m sure Robert Putnam would have quite a bit to say on the issue–but lets be “microsociologists” for a moment (whatever that means) and think of it terms of identity.
If we think of identities as the set of meanings that are associated with a social role and behavior as motivated from those meanings–if we act to confirm those meanings (identity control theory anyone?), then all else being equal (the lack of nickels and dimes in the regular check out lane) those that have identities that could be confirmed by going through the normal check out lane will do so. Who would those people be? Perhaps those who want to show a good parent identity? “I’m providing sustenance for my family.” Those who have strong identities that are supported through supporting the workers in an organization? Using self check out lanes does have the side effect of making cashiers redundant–supports the big bad grocer as they need to pay fewer cashiers when customers are willing to do the job others are paid minimum wage for themselves.
I am more interested of when people may choose not to go through a lane with a cashier. To some extent, we depersonalize the cashier. We buy what we need, and we try to ignore the fact that one or two other people are going to have complete knowledge of the kind of things we buy. It reminds me of a time in undergrad when I went through checkout and was purchasing a VERY large package of toilet paper. I lived in an apartment with 3 other women, and with boyfriends and friends who were frequently over, we had to have toilet paper for a large number of people. The cashier made a joke about what I was planning on doing with all that toilet paper. Five items back in the queue, I also has the jumbo box of condoms. He made no jokes about that one (although, I struggled to keep from laughing and making a comment of my own–as I imagine he was feeling pretty awkward at the moment). I know Husband (although, at that time, Boyfriend) was a bit upset. Perhaps people choose the self check at times because they want to keep their purchases private. It’s why certain businesses do quite a bit of plain brown package sales over the internet. Perhaps part of it is status panic? Supermarkets are often places we are put elbow to elbow with people across the spectrum of SES. Maybe rich people are avoiding talking to lower status individuals by using self check? Sending the message that their time and autonomy is too important to spend in line with the normal folk? Perhaps the self check lane is a way to avoid interaction all together–creating a false sense of a backstage?
Told you I was insane. I have spent many down hours thinking about this. CRAZY!
Thoughts?
9 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Yeah, I’ve got thoughts.
“Husband?” That’s the best you can do for the poor man?
Also: glad to see you got this all figured out. Your header graphic is the bomb. Diggity.
Comment by The Mad Slave April 7, 2008 @ 12:40 amAnd your thoughts would be?
Comment by pitse1eh April 7, 2008 @ 1:21 amI use self-check out when it’s available because there’s rarely a line for it. And I don’t like to talk to people. I don’t care what their SES is, but it does make a difference in which strangers I’ll actively avoid in everyday interactions: I find that low SES people are more likely to try to strike up a conversation with me.
I’m not buying the hypothesis that people with strong parent identities will go through regular check-out to enact the role of provider. You could just as easily argue that going through self-check is better in this regard: “I am engaged in all aspects of bringing the stuff home.” Impression management, may cause you to go through the cashier. But only if you’re buying acceptable things, and want to show off the purchases.
That might be it, right there. Poorer people might be more likely to go through the cashier because they want to display their goods – it’s not the content of the goods that matters, it’s the fact that they can buy them.
Comment by anomie April 7, 2008 @ 4:44 pmOh Yay! A dialog.
The problem with saying is that it is this identity or that (parent, wife, husband, whatever) is that to some extent, this depends on the person. Although identity control theory does say that meanings are constructed through culture (see my favorite article on ICT–Burke’s 2004 acceptance of the Cooley/Mead Award in SPQ), there is wiggle room within this. Not clear yet where this comes from or how much there is. I’m guessing ICT researchers would say it depends on how open or closed the system is (drawing on Stryker’s Identity Theory–which is also not so descriptive on what constitutes open or closed and is currently giving me a headache because of that). I would think that this could be confirming of a parental identity–especially in people who have fewer ways to verify it than perhaps others do. For example, a weekend Dad or Mom may choose to go and talk to the cashier about “Darn, aren’t these diapers I have to buy for Jr. expensive” because maybe they don’t have a lot of other interactions (dropping off Jr. at school, taking Jr. to baseball practice, whatever) in order to confirm this.
I also dig your idea about poor individuals going through the cashier to display their goods. I think there is really something to that.
I will be responding to your comment about the backstage existing or not. I had planned a post on it, so hope to get to that in the next day or so.
Thanks for posting!
Comment by pitse1eh April 7, 2008 @ 6:38 pmI think the wiggle-room question is best answered by McCall and Simmons, though I don’t think they do it perfectly, either. They talk about role-identities being on a conventional-idiosyncratic scale, depending on the extent of role conformity. This differs by individual and by role. They also talk about how power determines the ability to improve within a role, but I don’t know how much I buy their proposed directional effect (more power, more improve ability). Gender performance would be a glaring exception to that predicted outcome, as women have MUCH more ability to act like men than the reverse. Add in the idea of closure, which is addressed by Stryker but most fully by Coleman, then you get a more robust vision of role-conformity. I think we could toss in some Merton here, too, but I think I’m in the minority there. At least, I am within my department.
Comment by anomie April 7, 2008 @ 11:31 pmwhen I said “improve”, I meant “improv”, as in improvise. Like in theater. Duh.
Comment by anomie April 7, 2008 @ 11:32 pmWho knew that my random thoughts on self checkers could actually lead back to honest to God sociology?
I like McCall and Simmons, but likewise take issue the power differential–although it sounds good, doesn’t it?
In terms of balance between agency and structure, and in terms of power (though I don’t believe this concept is used), I’m a fan of Ridgeway and status construction. I always just want to embrace her (and expectation states theories, in general) as structural SI, and it makes me sad that I can’t.
In general, though, I think ICTers would draw on Stryker. It seems to be the trend since Burke and Stryker published the 2000 article where it seems they were forgiving each other for the whole naming issue (Oh my God, two Identity Theories! It can NEVER stand!). I was talking to some other graduate students about social psych, and they were commenting that they all seem to have the same name. So, the grand theory of social psych? Identity Affect Control theory of Exchange.
Comment by pitse1eh April 8, 2008 @ 2:09 am“Identity Affect Control theory of Exchange”: I like it.
Not familiar with Ridgeway, though. I’ll have to look her up. “Status construction” sounds like a concept I could use.
I love how Burke and Stryker got together and combined their theories; they’re both the better for it. However, it would have been fun from an observer’s perspective if they had gotten into an academic slam-fest.
I love reading those.
Comment by anomie April 8, 2008 @ 11:28 amLike slam-fests?
Check out Stryker and Burke in Symbolic Interaction 2003 26(1): 95-109 (for Stryker) and Burke (same issue pg. 111-118). I also love how Fine in Annual Review of Soc (1993) says affect control theory isn’t “real” SI… even though there is a subsequent book by MacKinnon called Affect Control Theory as Symbolic Interaction.
Those older SI folks are great for that shit.
Clearest description of status construction is probably Ridgeway and Correll’s chapter in Burke’s 2006 Contemporary Social Psychology book. Easy to read.
Let me know if you’d like me to PDF any of these (though I don’t have the book as a PDF–I do have other articles).
Comment by pitse1eh April 8, 2008 @ 12:08 pm