a social skills analysis in childhood and adolescence using symbolic interactionism

Journal o f Youth and Adolescence, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1984

A Social Skills Analysis in Childhood and Adolescence Using Symbolic Interactionism

Alan RusselP Received September 22, 1980

Support is obtained from the literature about the need for advances in the conceptualization o f "social skills. " There is agreement that much is known about how to improve social skills, but less attention has been given to what to change or improve. The present article outlines a model o f social skills in childhood and adolescence using the concepts and literature on symbolic interactionism in an attempt to provide a possible conceptual framework for social skills. The proposed model is organized around the concepts o f role- taking, role-making, definition o f the situation, and self. Each concept is taken in turn and how it could contribute to the analysis or understanding of social skills in childhood and adolescence is shown. The article concludes with a discussion o f ways in which the proposed scheme might be used in one area of social skills - friendship making. Some possible difficulties and limitations in the model are noted.

INTRODUCTION

The rapidly expanding social skills literature seems to have been dominated by an interest in improving or training social skills in adults (e.g., Bellack and Hersen, 1979; Rathjen and Foreyt, 1980) as well as children and adolescents (e.g., McGuire and Priestley, 1981; Cartledge and Milburn, 1978, 1980; Combs and Slaby, 1977). Most attention seems to have been given to skill-training techniques or strategies such as coaching, modeling, and reinforcement (Twentyman and Zimering, 1979; Michelson and Wood, 1979; Combs and Slaby, 1977). Recently, it has become more widely

~School of Education, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia 5042. Received his Ph.D. from University of Adelaide in 1971. Research interests are behavior disturbances in children, and parent-child relationships.

73

004%2891/84/0200.00"/3503.50/0 © 1984 Plenum Publishing Corporation

74 Russell

recognized that while we seem to know how to train social skills, we are much less certain about what to train; while methods for training have been well researched, the content of training programs remains an area of con- tention. This point is well made by Got tman (1983):

There has been a resurgence of intervention research in the past decade. A recent review of this intervention research by Conger and Keane (1981) shows how much attention has been given to how to change children (e.g., modeling, shaping, teacher praise, peer pairing, instruction, feedback, rehearsal). Unfortunately, comparative- ly little attention has been given to what to change. As much attention needs to be devoted to building the content of intervention as to its mode of delivery. (p. 76, em- phases in original)

The same point has been made by many other authors. For example, Twentyman and Zimering (1979) say, "Although an extensive literature ex- ists in which behavioral training techniques have been applied, only a few experiments report systematic attempts to obtain validation o f the responses which are taught" (p. 323). Got tman (1983) put it another way when discussing one area of social skills in children, namely, making friends: "Currently there is little information available that has the descriptive details necessary for designing interventions to teach children how to make friends with a peer" (p. 2). Cox and Gunn (1980) say, "Though the recent work of several investigators offers promise in improving the social skill level of socially deficient children, we are presently limited by our lack of sophistication in conceptualizing the area of social skills development" (p. 127).

The point made by Curran and Mariot to (I980) is ever stronger: "We feel that social skills research is at a critical point at this stage o f development. If we do not improve our assessment sophistication, social skills as a construct will remain little more than a summary term with enough surplus meaning to be meaningless." Their paper makes clear the considerable overlap between "assessment sophistication" and the lack of "conceptual clarity" referred to by Cox and Gunn. Schinke (1981), in quoting Bellack (1979), also recognizes the present difficulties in assessment and the selection of appropriate target behaviors for training.

Another way to illustrate our present difficulties in conceptualizing social skills throughout childhood and adolescence is to look at the problem of definition. Curran (1979) says the most widely used definition is that social skills represents "the complex ability to maximize the rate of positive reinforcement and to minimize the strengths of punishment f rom others" (p. 321). An example of this type of definition is provided by Foster and Ritchey (1979), who define socially competent behavior as "those responses which, within a given situation prove effective or, in other words, maximize the probability o f producing, maintaining or enhancing positive effects for

Social Skills Analysis Using Symbolic Interactionism 75

the interactor (p. 676). Combs and Slaby (1977) and Cartledge and Milburn (1980) provide comparable definitions. In a slightly different way, McGuire and Priestley (1981) say, "By the phrase 'social skills' most people mean those kinds of behavior which are basic to effective face-to-face communication between individuals" (pp. 6-7). The limitations of these kinds of definitions have been cogently argued by Curran (1979) and Conger and Keane (1981), who all note that the definitions are so broad they become vague if they are intended for use as a means of selecting the content of a social skills training program. Thus; "the term social skills or social competence can be (and is) so broadly construed that in attempting to explain everything, it in fact explains very little" (Conger & Keane, 1981, p. 478). It would be unfair to say the definitions of the kind cited above do not help focus attention on potentially relevant behaviors; such definitions do give some indications about the types of behaviors which would constitute skilled performance and those that would imply social deficits. The main point is that they are not helpful enough.

There is a convergence in the literature about a need for improvements in the analyses or conceptualization of social skills in children and adolescents, so that, at the least, persons wishing to design trainingpro- grams can obtain assistance in the task of selecting program content. Two broad strategies have aimed to improve our basic understanding of social skills. The first has been empirical and descriptive; children and adolescents have been observed or recorded interacting under naturalistic conditions, for example, in the process of making friends or resolving conflicts (Dodge, 1983; Gottman, 1983; Selman, 1981). The second strategy is theoretical and involves the development of models or theories about the nature of social skills (e.g., Greenberger and Sorensen, 1974; Trower et aL, 1978). The present study attempts to make a contribution by following the second strategy. The aim is to outline a model of social skills in childhood and adolescence using the concepts and literature of symbolic interactionism. There are four key constructs readily available in symbolic interactionism which can help to provide a conceptual framework for social skills. This conceptual framework takes us at least one step beyond general definitions of the kind discussed above and can provide (1) directions for basic research as well as (2) guidelines for those involved in either the assessment of social skills or the design of training programs.

One of the advantages of symbolic interactionism is its extensive theoretical and empirical literature, where the focus is on the analysis of human social behavior. This broader analysis of social behavior in symbolic interactionism provides a foundation on which to draw for the conceptualization and study of social skills.

76 Russell

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM

The principal ideas of symbolic interactionism used in the present study come from the Chicago school (see Meltzer et aL, 1975), with this perspective's leading figure being George Herbert Mead (e.g., Mead, 1934). The central ideas in symbolic interactionism are contained in its title. The first is that human behavior is shaped by the meanings of situations (symbolic). The second is that these symbols or meanings emerge from and are generated by interaction among individuals (interactionism): "The meanings of stimuli are socially derived through interaction with others" (Manis and Meltzer, 1978, p. 6). For our present purposes, the emphasis is on the first idea-people react to and behave in situations as a function of the meaning of these situations. Humans communicate and interact via symbolic behaviors, in contrast to animals, whose behavior is seen as arising mainly from instincts and conditioning. Manis and Meltzer (1978) elevate this difference to the principal idea in symbolic interactionism when they state: "Distinctively human behavior and interaction are carried on through the medium of symbols and their meanings. This is the central idea in symbolic interactionism. It entails the recognition that human beings do not typically respond directly to stimuli, but assign meanings to the stimuli and act on the basis of the meanings" (p. 6).

Symbolic interactionism's main subject matter is social interaction. The literature contains a body of knowledge about social interaction as well as concepts and procedures for analyzing social interaction. For the purpose of analyzing social skills, four central concepts from symbolic interactionism have been selected. They provide a comprehensive analysis of social interaction from the viewpoint of symbolic interactionism. The concepts are (1) taking the role of the other (role-taking), (2) role-making, (3) definition of the situation, and (4) self. Each of these will be examined in turn, showing its potential for the analysis of social skills in childhood and adolescence. The four concepts can all be related to the central idea of symbols/meanings in the sense that each deals with a set of meanings that influences social interaction.

Most, but not all (e.g., Denzin, 1977; Stone and Farberman, 1970), of the symbolic interactionism literature deals with the social life of adults. Nothing from symbolic interactionists, however, suggests that their analytical concepts are more relevant to one age group (e.g., adults) than to another (e.g., children). Writers such as Mead (1934), Denzin (1977), and Hewitt (1976) reveal that the concepts apply to human social interaction, from childhood onwards. This does not imply that the concepts apply in ex- actly the same way at each age, only that they are applicable. Thus, the argument here is that each of the four concepts is relevant and applies in

Social Skills Analysis Using Symbolic Intcractionism 77

some way to human social interaction across the age span. In addition, the precise form or content of each concept is expected to vary with age. For example, the way in which children, adolescents, and adults role-take in the sense of their perceptions of others will vary. The roles that a person makes in social interaction change throughout development. And, the way people construe situations, and the important elements of self which influence people's social interaction, will change with age. What doesn't change is the fact that role-making, definition of the situation, and self are central factors shaping social interaction at any age.

Of the four concepts, only role-taking, or person perception, has been subject to an extensive developmental analysis (e.g., Selman, 1980; Baren- boim, 1977; Turnure, 1975; Davison et al., 1980). There is an undoubted need for a comparable analysis of role-making, definition of situation, and self to show how their contribution to social interaction changes with age. However, the purpose of this study is not to carry out such a developmental analysis. Rather, the aim is to sketch in fairly broad terms the potential contributions to our understanding of social skills of the concepts from symbolic interactionism.

Not all the ideas presented here are exclusive to symbolic interactionism. Many of them overlap with fields such as role theory (e.g., Sar- bin, 1954], person perception (e.g., Livesley and Bromley, 1973), social cognition in children (e.g., Shantz, 1975), self theory (e.g., Holland, 1977), ethnomethodology (Denzin, 1970; Garfinkel, 1967), ethogeny (Harre and Secord, 1972; Harre, 1979), and action theory (Chapman, 1982; Cranach and Kalbermatten, 1982). What symbolic interaction does is integrate these various ideas into a comprehensive analysis of social interaction around a unified perspective.

Role-Taking

Probably the most significant concept for an analysis of social skills that comes from symbolic interactionism is "taking the role of the other." This concept captures the set of meanings associated with a person's perception of the other (or others) in interaction as well as his perception o f the meanings his behavior has f o r the other. Role-taking is a more general and more cognitive concept than empathy, with which it overlaps. "Empathy" mainly refers to a person's perceptions of another's feelings. Role-taking, in contrast incorporates all that may arise from an attempt to "place oneself in another's shoes." A major aspect involves viewing one's own acts from the standpoint of the other. Role-taking includes expectations and predictions about the other's role and what the other will do, say, and feel, as well as

78 Russell

beliefs about the other's expectations and predictions for one's own behavior.

Symbolic interactionism has designated two kinds of "other" that must be taken account of in formulat ing behavior. The first is the "specific other ," the actual person or persons with whom one is interacting in a situation. The second is the "generalized other." The latter, as described by Mead (1934), is a person's generalized perspective on the expectations for behavior of the group within which the person has been socialized; it is built up in the course o f development as a composi te o f all the "others" the child interacts with.

The potential relevance of role-taking for the analysis and understanding of social skills has been recognized in both the sociological and child development literature. In the sociological literature, Gough (1948; Gough and Peterson, 1952) was one of the first to put the case for role-taking as a factor in social skills. Gough was interested in the breakdown of social skills in "psychopathic" behavior. He argued that the psychopathic personality is pathologically deficient in role-taking abilities:

The psychopath is unable tO foresee the consequences of his own acts, especially their social implications, because he does not know how to judge his own behavior from another's standpoint. What might be called social emotions, such as embar- rassment, discomfiture, loyalty, contrition and gregariousness (group identification) are not experienced by the psychopath . . . . When confronted with disapproval the psychopath often expresses surprise and resentment. He cannot understand the reasons for the observer's objection or disapprobation . . . . The psychopath will violate other's wishes and desires because he does not conceive of his own actions as inimical to their wants . . . . He lacks control because he cannot anticipate objections which others will make to his behavior. (Gough, 1948, pp. 363-364)

Essentially, ideas identical to Gough 's have emerged in the child development literature over the past 20 years, both to explain disturbed behavior in children and as a basis o f the design of intervention programs to improve social skills. Chandler (1972, 1973; Chandler et ai., 1974), for example, has developed intervention programs for institutionalized delinquent boys based on the proposi t ion that delays in the acquisition of role- taking or perspective-taking skills are central to the development o f delinquency. Chandler (1973) says, "Persons demonstrat ing developmental delays in these skills have been shown to systematically misread societal expectations, to misinterpret the actions and intentions o f others, and to act in ways which were judged to be callous and disrespectful o f the rights o f others." Chandler uses the term "egocentric" to describe the thought o f persons who fail accurately to role-take.

Chandler has found significantly poorer role-taking abilities in delinquent boys (8-15), compared to nondelinquents. He assessed role-taking ability in a situation in which the boy had to relate a story f rom the viewpoint o f two characters. The more the boys injected into the account by the


second person only things the first person knew, the more egocentric (lower on role-taking) they were. Following an intervention program, Chandler compared a no-treatment control group with a placebo group and a role- taking training group. The training group went through a 10-week program in which one-half day per week was devoted to a drama and film-making workshop where the boys developed skits about boys like themselves and then played out the skits repeatedly, playing each role in the skit in turn. Chandler (1972) reasoned: "It was hoped that by being encouraged to adopt roles other than their own, to review the same event from multiple perspec- tives, and to observe themselves from the vantage of others, these subjects would gradually be helped to abandon their egocentric biases and begin to develop role-taking skills commensurate with their age" (p. 573). Subse- quent testing showed that only subjects in the experimental group improved significantly in role-taking ability. "An 18 month follow-up showed these improvements to be associated with significant reductions in delinquent behavior (Chandler, 1973, p. 326).

Support for the theories and research of Gough and Chandler comes from the literature in three ways. First, others have also argued that there may be a possible causal relationship between poor role-taking ability and poor social skills in children and adolescents (e.g., Neale, 1966; Maccoby, 1959; Reed and Caudra, 1957; Thompson, 1968; Martin, 1968; Selman, 1976a) or that role-taking ability is a requirement for effective social interaction (Hewitt, 1976; Kohlberg, 1969; Sarbin, 1954; Feffer, 1970; Flavell, 1966; Wilkinson, 1974). The second area of support comes from research comparing children or adolescents with recognized deficiencies in social skills (e.g., the emotionally disturbed or delinquent) with "normal" con- trois. Almost invariably the evidence is that the "disturbed" groups score lower on tests or measures of role-taking (Selman, 1976b; Rothenberg, 1970; Trent, 1957; Reed and Caudra, 1957; Neale, 1966).

Finally, the literature supports Chandler's results about being able to improve role-taking by training. Evidence is now available for children from preschool years (Smilansky, 1968; O'Connor, 1977; Saltz and Johnson, 1974) to middle childhood (Silvern et aL, 1979; Enright et aL, 1977; Iannotti, 1978) and adolescence (Kipper and Ben-Ely, 1979; Bernier and Rustad, 1977; Haynes and Avery, 1979). The evidence also covers a variety of different training programs.

The potential usefulness of the role-taking concept for an understanding of social skills in children and adolescents seems now to be widely recognized. But in terms of the development of detailed schemes for the analysis and training of social skills using the concept of role-taking, the literature has not advanced very far. Most of the research has used struc- tured tests of role-taking as measures before and after training. Corn-

80 Russell

paratively little is known about children's role-taking under naturalistic conditions or about the links between tested role-taking and real-life role-taking or between tested role-taking and general social behavior. An element of caution is engendered by Selman's suggestion (1976b) that "children with general interpersonal behaviors perceived as negative by others are also likely to have low social-cognitive development but children with high levels of social-cognitive development may or may not be disliked or liked by peers" (p. 192). That is, poor social skills and poor role-taking may be highly cor- related, but ability in role-taking does not necessarily imply social skills or interpersonal competence in the eyes of peers. An implication may be that training in role-taking is no guarantee of improving all areas of interpersonal behavior. This suggests that social skills require more than role- taking, a possibility recognized in the present model by the use of three additional concepts.

Self

Symbolic interactionists argue that self is taken into account in the formulation of behavior (Meltzer et al., 1975; Mead, 1934; Hewitt, 1976). This is done by treating self as object and seeing one's behavior from the viewpoint of others (i.e., by role-taking). The idea is that the views people hold about themselves and how they perceive other people view them (what Herzberger et aL, 1981, call "social self-conceptions") affect the way they behave in social situations.

The literature on self in symbolic interactionism and that on self- concept in the psychological literature overlap at points. The present sec- tion does not attempt a comprehensive review of this vast literature. Rather, some ideas from symbolic interactionism are selected to illustrate their potential usefulness to an analysis of social skills in children and adolescents.

Mead (1934, p. 140), along with other writers in symbolic interactionism, saw the self as a social structure arising from social interaction. Hence, much of their work focuses on socialization and the development of self. For present purposes, however, most of that is put to one side and the focus is on Mead's distinction between the 'T' and the "Me" and factors affecting these phases of self.

Mead placed much emphasis on "self" as a process in the formulation and modification of behavior in social interaction. Any analysis of social interaction, and hence of social skills, must recognize the distinction between 'T' and "Me" as two phases in the self as process (see Mead, 1934). The 'T' or initial phase of self refers to the "immediate, spontaneous, and impulsive aspects of c o n d u c t . . . " (Hewitt, 1976, p. 63). When, as a result


of hearing or seeing what they have said or done in the 'T ' phase, the person becomes aware of their initial response and then formulates behavior as a reaction to the impulsive response, the "Me" phase of self becomes opera- tional. In the "Me" phase the person responds to themselves as an object in the situation vi a role-taking.

Children or adolescents who seem unable to adjust their behavior appropriately in given social situations (i.e., seem unable to react appropriately to feedback from themselves and others) might be described as having a poorly developed "Me" phase, possibly due to limited role-taking abilities. But difficulties may also arise in the "I" phase of self, a situation more likely in younger children where the "Me" is only in the early stages of development. Hewitt (1976) makes a case for the nature and formulation of 'T' responses being affected by general physical (e.g., hunger, anxiety, tiredness) and mental (e.g., low self-esteem, fear) states or dispositions. Hewitt (1976) states that "low self-esteem entails impulsive responses to the appearance of others that put them in the best possible light" (p. 88). Clear- ly, many such states may bias a person's responding in the "r ' phase in ways that could be seen as reflecting inappropriate responses or poor social skills. Elliott (1982), for example, shows how low self-esteem was associated with a tendency to present a false front, to hide one's feelings behind a facade.

Many of these same states, especially the mental ones, are also going to affect the children's perceptions of their own behavior and their reactions to this behavior (i.e., the "Me" phase). Here there is an overlap with the general literature on self-concept (e.g., Felker, 1974; La Benne and Greene, 1969; Purkey, 1970), where large numbers of beliefs about themselves have been claimed to affect children's behavior.

For an analysis of the breakdown of social skills, symbolic interactionism's treatment of deviance is especially helpful. Many authors have been interested in the effects on behavior of labeling, and especially negative labeling (e.g., Lemert, 1967a; Goffman, 1963; Becker, 1963; Matza, 1969; Schur, 1971; Rubington and Weinberg, 1973; Rose, 1968). The central argument is that successful labeling affects the person's social identity and self-conception. Labeled persons (e.g., delinquent) find their various role identities restricted and limited by others to those consistent with the label. The label also may be internalized, so that it becomes a part of the individual's self-conception and further deviance--what Lemert (1967a) calls secondary deviance-follows. Absence of an identity, of a view of oneself as a person, may also be a contributing factor in disturbed social behavior (see Lemert's 1967b analysis of check forgers).

The process of moving from self to behavior has been discussed by McCall and Simmons (1966), who see the self as made up of many identities, images, and values. In any one situation, a selection of these becomes salient and is acted upon. McCall and Simmons outline five factors affect-

82 Russell

ing whether a certain role-identity will be enacted in a given situation (e.g., perceived relevance and profitability of an enactment). One aspect of a person's social skills appears to relate to his abilities to make judgments about the relevance or value of presenting one or other aspect of the self in a given situation. Abilities in the areas of role-taking and definition of situation are likely to bear heavily on these judgments.

In summary, a breakdown in social skills may be seen either in the 'T ' phase or the "Me" phase of the self. In the " r ' phase, the breakdown is probably associated with general mental or physical states, pervasive at- titudes, dispositions, and so on. In the "Me" phase, the breakdown may be associated with lack of role-taking skills, a poor ability to define situations (see below), or with one or more of the beliefs held about oneself (i.e., one's self-concept). Often, the disposition (e.g., to believe others are always trying to attack the person) or the self-conception (e.g., the person is an un- attractive individual) may lead to pervasive responses that are consistent in both the "I" and "Me" phases (e.g., to be aggressive or continually self- effacing and withdrawn). Many of the effects of negative labeling that symbolic interactionists have so helpfully noted operate in this pervasive way. Finally, beginning efforts have been made at showing how aspects of self such as self-esteem (Elliott, 1982) or social self-conceptions (Herzberger et al., 1981) may change with age, but much more attention needs to be directed to research of this kind.

The implications of the present analysis are that the "self" may contribute to social behavior (and hence social skills) differently according to whether we focus on the " r ' or "Me" phase. This implies that the assessment of social skills should involve both a child or adolescent's immediate or spontaneous reactions in situations where the individual may exhibit social problems, as well as an examination of the way in which the individual does (or does not) adjust his behavior according to the feedback from oneself and from others. An implication of the present analysis is that potential factors contributing to poor social skills may vary according to whether we are looking at "I" or "Me" responses.

Role-Making

Many symbolic interactionists (e.g., Mead, 1934; Blumer, 1966; Hewitt, 1976) believe social interaction is a series of formative transactions in which behavior is negotiated and constructed in each situation. Rather than seeing roles played as static elements of status or position, role-making in symbolic interactionism retains its tentative, dynamic, and creative features (Meltzer et aL, 1975, p. 64). Meltzer et aL (1975) quote Blumer (1966, p. 536) in saying "Action is seen to be built up, or constructed, in the


course of its execution, rather than merely being released from a pre- existing psychological structure by factors playing on the structure (p. 63). Roles are constructed or made in ways consistent with definitions of the situations (see below), role-taking, and aspects of self.

A social skills analysis seems to have two main components to role- making. The first is knowledge about the appropriateness of a given role in a specific situation. Such knowledge would seem to relate closely to definitions of the situations and role-taking. The second concerns ability to make a given role and the stock of roles the person has available. In the latter case, a child may have difficulties in social interaction from not knowing how to make a given role (e.g., gratitude to peers for presents at a birthday party). Wilkinson (1974) covers these two elements in the first component of his description of "dramaturgic incompetence," which he describes as in- correctly or improperly staging a performance. The research by Thorbecke and Grotevant (1982) illustrates potential problems adolescents may have in determining appropriate roles in the two areas of friendship making and dating. Interestingly, Thorbecke and Grotevant found that for late adolescents, friendship seemed to provide the most difficulties in finding suitable or appropriate "styles of relationships." That is, late adolescents were still actively exploring various roles to make in friendship relationships. An implication is that a social skills training program for this age group could assist them in the exploration and practice of friendship roles.

An important point made by many symbolic interactionists (Scheff, 1966; Goffman, 1963; Hewitt, 1976) is that often the roles a person has available to make in a given situation are limited by the roles made by others and by others' definitions of the situation (e.g., a scapegoat in a family). Scheff (1968) argues that "To the degree that alternative roles are closed off, the proferred role may come to be the only way the individual can cope with the situation" (p. 14). This suggests that social skills training programs need to be aware of the social environment in which a person operates and possible ways this environment could limit or restrict the individual's choice in terms of roles to be made.

The complexities of role-making have been well covered by Goffman (e.g., 1959). He describes role-making in terms of a person intentionally or unintentionally expressing himself so that others are in turn impressed in some way. The expressions involved are those (1) that he gives-"verbal symbols or their substitutes which he uses admittedly and solely to convey the information that he and the others are known to attach to these symbols. This is communication in the traditional and narrow sense" (1959, p. 14) and (2) that he gives off, mainly nonverbally. For Goffman, effective role-making has to do with achieving one's goals or intentions in a situation. Effective role-making may serve to control or limit the roles made by others and the definition of the situation by others. From this viewpoint, social

84 Russell

skills would seem to relate to one's ability to make roles so as to achieve one's goals. Two of the factors emphasized by Goffman as influential in the success of role-making are the initial stages or initial information given to the other, and the way in which the largely unintended expressions contribute to or inhibit and disrupt the role.

In summary, several features of symbolic interactionists' treatment of role-making seem able to contribute to an analysis of social skills in children and adolescents. Some factors which could be considered are the following: Does the individual select inappropriate roles to make? Are the roles appropriate but the construction or performance of the roles inadequate? Can the individual benefit from learning new or alternative roles to make? Are individuals aware of how nonverbal cues affect their role performance? Can individuals be helped to strengthen the initial stages of role presentation?

The importance attached to the creative aspects of role-making in symbolic interactionism seems to have implications for the training of social skills. When it is recognized that roles are usually constructed and negotiated during and through social interaction, the difficulty of "preprogramming" a child or adolescent for a role in a situation becomes apparent. This is because the individual must take account of what others say and do in order to construct the role. Because most of his reactions to others are going to be in the spontaneous "I" phase of self, the individual needs more than a preprogrammed package in order to "carry off" a role. The implication seems to be that in order to master the ability to construct new roles, a child or adolescent should receive some training in situations that allow him to actually construct the role. This suggests the use of improvised role-playing (rather than highly scripted role-playing). Hence, while it may be helpful to teach children that friendly behavior means things like smiling, looking at the other person, and asking questions of the other, unless children can learn to construct the friendly role for themselves in a variety of situations they are likely to still have difficulties.

Definition of the Situation

The origins of the concept of definition of the situation are manifold (e.g., see Meltzer et ai., I975; Stone and Farberman, 1970; Stebbins, 1967; Waller, 1961; Manis and Meltzer, 1972; Perinbanayagam, 1981). Recogni- tion is usually given to the initial contributions of Thomas (e.g., 1951), but overlap is seen with Mead's ideas (e.g., Mead, 1932). In more recent times a major contribution to the elucidation of the concept has been made by McHugh (1968).

At the most general level the concept "definition of the situation" captures all aspects of meaning that a situation has for a person. The definition

Social Skills Analysis Using Symbolic Intcractionism 85

of the situation includes expectations about the activities occurring in the situation in the past and likely to occur in the future, expectations about the roles that will be made by others in the situation, beliefs about the aims and motives of others in the situation, and perceptions of one's own role and contribution in the situation. An important contribution to the definition of the situation is made by role-taking others involved, but there is more to the overall assessment of the meaning of a situation than role-taking alone. "Situations" can be defined at various levels. "Being a student in school" may be a situation, one that goes on for several years in a variety of settings with many participants. Equally, reacting to an unfair accusation from a teacher or having a pencil stolen by another student may be situations. Situations are defined by the individual or individuals involved, rather than according to external or objective criteria.

Probably the principal idea from symbolic interactionism about the definition of the situation is explained by Hewitt (1976): "Human conduct takes place within situations that are defined by participants, who act towards one another, the situations themselves, and the objects they contain on the basis of their definitions" (p. 105). Definitions of situations are often revealed through an individual's intentions, purposes, or goals in a situation. Furthermore, a person usually brings to a situation certain intentions, purposes, and goals, as well as beliefs about other participants' intentions, purposes, goals, and beliefs. This means that people are predisposed to define a situation in a given way even before they enter the situation. This is especially so for situations with which the person is relatively familiar, or in what symbolic interactionists call taken-for-granted situations.

Another important aspect of the definition of the situation is that definitions are typically negotiated to s o m e ex t en t by participants in a situation (i.e., a definition common to most of those interacting in the situation emerges via the process of interaction). This operates especially when there is not strong initial agreement among participants about how a situation is to be defined. In many cases a breakdown in social skills can be traced to a child or adolescent holding views about the definition of situations that diverge repeatedly from those held by important others in their social life. For example, an adolescent may repeatedly and strongly define all situations in which he participates with adults as situations in which he must challenge adult authority or power in a defiant fashion.

This brief examination of notions about the definition of the situation shows two areas that could help in the analyses of social skills in childhood and adolescence. The first relates to the extent to which the individual is predisposed to define situations at variance with others, so that either conflict is generated or the individual behaves inappropriately. The second per- tains to the process of negotiation in the definition of situations and involves the individual's abilities to master or understand cues from others

86 Russell

about how they are defining the situation and to engage in a process of negotiation so that a workable definition can emerge. In short, the two areas cover (I) typical definitions individuals bring to situations, and (2) abilities to participate in the negotiation of definitions.

In a similar way as for role-making, a possible implication of the present analysis of definition of the situation is that training in the negotiation of definitions may require the use of improvised role-playing techniques, so that the child or adolescent can experience the process. In terms of the analysis and training of definitions that individuals bring to situations, the proposal of Stebbins (1978) could be used. He outlined 13 lines of questions that might be used in research on definitions of the situation, such as (1) the identification of relevant others present, (2) assessment of the person's perceptions of the others' evaluation of the situation, (3) assesment of the person's perceptions of the goals or intentions of others in the setting, (4) the person's own plans of action in the situation. These same questions could be used as guidelines for an analysis of a child or adolescent's definition of a situation in which either had shown inappropriate or inadequate social behavior and also as a basis for attempts to improve either's definition of the situation.

A N EXAMPLE: FRIENDSHIP MAKING

The importance of social skills for friendship making has been widely accepted in the literature (e.g., Goswick and Jones, 1982; Button, 1979). The present study will conclude with a discussion of how the concepts of symbolic interactionism may be applied to the case of friendship making, as one area of social skills. When the present analysis using symbolic interactionism is applied to any specific "area" of social skills, such as friendship making, two special problem s become apparent. The first concerns criteria for determining whether a particular social performance represents an example of skills or an example of some kind of social deficit. If one is to design training programs to improve social skil ls- in this case in friendship making- i t would be important to be able to make judgments about the adequacy of any given social performance. As with other attempts to define social skills, symbolic interactionism is also indeterminant about precise criteria for judging performance. Nevertheless, the four concepts outlined above provide some useful guidelines for judging social behavior. Accord- ingly, a social exchange in which an individual (I) made gross and consistent role-taking errors, (2) was ineffectual in role-making, (3) defined situations at total variance with other important individuals in the social exchange, and (4) maintained self-conceptions that were unrealistic would be very likely to be seen as deficient to some degree.


Viewed in this way, it should be apparent that the focus of assessment and training in an area such as friendship making should be on such things as (1) improving the accuracy of role-taking; (2) increasing the effectiveness of role-making; (3) clarifying and modifying self-conceptions so that they are more realistic; and (4) improving definitions of situations so that they are more in harmony with those of other interactants, or at least so that the individual is more aware of how others define situations. This might suggest that these four central concepts are of about equal importance and are com- patible with each other. At times this will not be the case, and increased weight may have to be placed on one concept in the beginning stages so as to achieve some change. For example, if an adolescent is strongly aggressive and has gained a reputation among peers for aggression, then an identity of aggressiveness may be realistic and others with whom he/she interacts may define situations as ones to be withdrawn from or avoided when the target adolescent is involved. In a case such as this, the emphasis may need to be placed on acquiring new roles to be made in social interaction, so that gradually self-conceptions may be modified and others may come to modify their definitions of situations in which the target adolescent participates.

The second concern when trying to apply the theory outlined here to a specific area relates to the selection of situations for either the assessment or training of friendship skills. For example, should "initiating conversations" or "engaging in intimate conversation" be the focus of attention? Symbolic interactionism is definite about the fact that all social interaction occurs in situations, so that social interaction cannot be analyzed free of a context. But in an area such as friendship making, the theory does not indicate which situations should be studied, assessed, or trained. It does, however, suggest ways of making decisions about the choice of situations. Through its emphasis on human behavior being shaped by the meanings of situations, symbolic interactionism implies that the choice of situations should come from information from individuals about situations in which they experience difficulty or situations in which they believe they should develop more skills.

Once a list of situations has been chosen, analysis and training of social skills should be based on each of the four key concepts outlined in the present study. For example, if entry to a group of peers is one of the situations chosen, then analysis of individuals' present skills should focus on (1) how they role-take in such situations, (2) their existing attempts at group entry in terms of the entry roles or strategies they know about and use, (3) the way in which their self-conceptions contribute to their entry behavior, and (4) their definitions of the situation (e.g., in terms of their own intentions or goals in the group entry situation and their beliefs about the intentions and goals of other individuals in the group). Following assessment, training should involve attempts to improve performance or modify aspects of one or more of these four areas. For instance, a boy may be found to at-

88 Russell

tempt group entry by physically drawing attention to himself through pushing or interfering with a member o f the group. The boy may need help in alternative roles to make, but also assistance in role-taking so that he can understand how the group perceives such behavior. In addition, he might be helped to clarify his purposes in gaining group entry. Finally, his existing strategy may be associated with low levels of self-confidence or self-esteem, and he may also need help in this area.

The present approach to social skills leads to one important difference from many of the available training programs. It is probably fair to describe the major emphasis of existing programs as being in the area of "role- making." That is, participants are taught how to behave and what to do in a variety of situations. Thus, they may be taught to answer and ask questions, express opinions, be interested in others, join conversation groups, avoid conflict. Almost exclusively these skills represent aspects o f what has been called here "role-making." It should also be apparent that by adding role- taking, self, and definitions of the situation, the present analysis sees social skills in a much broader context and draws attention to many of the factors that may explain or underlie the individual's role choice in a given situation. It is argued here that symbolic interactionism shows that a full understanding of social skills necessitates going beyond the mere performance of a role or the behavioral features o f a role to an appreciation o f the complex o f meanings associated with role-taking, self, and definition of situation, all o f which contribute to social behavior.

R E F E R E N C E S

Barenboim, D. (1977). Developmental changes in the interpersonal cognitive system from middle childhood to adolescence. Child Dev. 48: 1467-1474.

Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance, Free Press, Glencoe, IlI. Beilack, A. S. (1979). A critical appraisal of strategies for assessing social skill. Behav. Assess.

1 : 157-176. Bellack, A. S., and Hersen, M. (eds.) (1979). Research and practice in social skills training.

Plenum, New York. Bernier, J. E., and Rustad, K. (1977). Psychology of counseling curriculum: A follow-up

study. Counsel. Psychol. 6: 18-22. Blumer, H. (1966). Sociological implications of the thought of G. H. Mead. Am. J. Sociol. 71:

535-544. Button, L. (1979). Friendship patterns. J. Adols. 2: 187-199. Cartledge, G., and Milburn, J. F. (1978). The case for teaching social skills in the classroom:

A review. Rev. Educ. Res. 48: 133-156. Cartledge, G., and Milburn, J. F. (eds.) (1980). Teaching social skills to children. Pergamon,

New York. Chandler, M. J. (1972). Egocentrism in normal and pathological child development. In

Monks, F., Hartup, W., and DeWitt, J. (eds.), Determinants of Behavioral Develop- ment, Academic Press, New York, pp. 569-576.


Chandler, M. J. (1973). Egocentrism and anti-social behavior: The assessment and training of social-perspective taking skill. Dev. Psychol. 9: 326-336.

Chandler, M. J., Greenspan, S., and Barenboim, C. (1974). Assessment and trainingof role- taking and referential communication skills in institutionalized emotionally disturbed children. Dev. Psychol. 10: 546-553.

Chapman, M. (1982). Action and interaction: The study of social cognition in Germany and the United States. Hum. Dev. 25: 295-302.

Combs, M. L., and SIaby, D. A. (1977). Social skills training with children. In Lahey, B. B., and Kazdin, A. E. (eds.), Advances in Clinical Child Psychology, Vol. I, Plenum, New York,

Conger, J. C., and Keane, S. P. (1981). Social skills intervention in the treatment of isolated or withdrawn children. Psychol. Bull. 90: 478-495.

Cox, R. D., and Gunn, W. B. (1980). Interpersonal skills in the schools: Assessment and curriculum development. In Rathjen, D. P., and Foreyt, J. P. (eds.), Social Com- petence: Interventions for Children and Adults, Pergamon, New York.

Cranach, M. yon, and Kalbermatten, U. (1982). Ordinary goal-directed action in social interaction. In Hacker, W., Volpert, W., and yon Cranach, M. (eds.), Cognitive and Motivational Aspects o fAction. North Holland Publishers, Amsterdam.

Curran, J. P. (1979). Social skills: methodological issues and future directions. In Bellack, A. S., and Hersen, M, (eds.), Research and Practice in Social Skills Training, Plenum, New York.

Curran, J. P., and Mariotto, M. J. (1980). A conceptual structure for the assessment of social skills. In Hersen, M., Eisler, R. M. and Miller, P. M. (eds.), Progress in Behavior Modification, Vol. 10. Academic Press, New York.

Davison, M. L., King, P. M., Kitchener, K. S., and Parker, C. A. (1980).)The stage sequence concept in cognitive and social development, Dev. Psychol. 16: 121-131.

Denzin, N. K. (1970). Symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology. In Douglas, J. D. (ed.), Understanding Everyday Life, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.

Denzin, N. K. (1977). Childhood Socialization, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Dodge, K. A. (1983). Behavioral antecedents of peer social status. ChildDev. 54: 1386-1399. Elliott, G. C. (1982). Self-esteem and self-presentation among the young as a function of age

and gender. J. Youth Adoles. 11: 135-153. Enright, R., Colby, S., and McMullin, I. (1977). A social-cognitive developmental intervention

with sixth and first graders. Counsel. Psychol. 6: 10-12. Feffer, M. (1970). Developmental analysis of interpersonal behavior. Psychol. Rev. 77:

197-214. Felker, D. W. (1974). Building Positive Self-Concepts, Burgess, Minneapolis, Minn. Flavell, J. H. (1966). Role-taking and communication skills in children. Young Children. 21:

164-177. Foster, S. L., and Ritchey, W. L. (1979). Issues in the assessment of social competence in

children. J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 12: 625-638. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Penguin, London. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of a Spoiled Identity, Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Goswick, R. A., and Jones, W. H. (1982). Components of loneliness during adolescence.

J. Youth Adoles. I1: 373-383. Gottman, J. M. (1983). How children become friends. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev. 48

(Serial No. 201). Gough, H. G. (1948). A sociological theory of psychopathy. Am. J. Sociol. 53: 359-366. Gough, H. G., and Pcterson, D. R. (1952). The identification and measurement of predisposi-

tional factors in crime and delinquency. J. Consult. Psychol. 16: 207-212. Greenberger, E., and Sorensen, A. B. (1974). Toward a concept of psycho-social maturity.

J. Youth Adoles. 3: 329-358. Harre, R. (1979). Social Being: A Theory for Social Psychology, Blackwell, Oxford. Harre, R., and Secord, P. F. (1972). The Explanation of Social Behaviour, Blackwell, Oxford.

90 Russell

Haynes, L. A., and Avery, A. W. (1979). Training adolescents in self-disclosure and empathy skills. J. Counsel. Psychol. 26: 526-530,

Herzberger, S. D., Dix, T,, Erlebacher, A., and Ginsburg, M. (1981). A developmental study of social self-conceptions in adolescence: Impressions and misimpressions. Merrill- Palmer Quart. 27: 15-29.

Hewitt, J. P. (1976). Self and Society: A Symbolic Interactionist's Social Psychology, Allyn & Bacon, Boston.

Holland, R. (1977). Self and Social Context, Macmillan, London. Iannotti, R. J. (1978). Effect of role-taking experiences on role-taking, empathy, altruism and

aggression. Dev. Psychol. 14:119-124. Kipper, D. A., and Ben-Ely, Z. (1979). The effectiveness of the psycho-dramatic double

method, the reflection method, and lecturing in the training of empathy. J. Clin. psychoL 35: 370-375.

Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In Goslin, D. A. (ed.), Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research, Rand McNalIy, Chicago.

La Benne, W. D., and Greene, B. I. (I 969). Educational Implications of Self-Concept Theory, Goodyear, Pacific Palisades, Calif.

Lemert, E. M. (1967a). Human Deviance, Social Problems and Social Control, Prentice- Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

Lemert, E. M. (1967b). Role enactment, self, and identity in the forger. In Lemert, E. M. Human Deviance, Social Problems and Social Control, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

Livesley, W. J., and Bromley, D. B. (1973). Person Perception in Childhood and Adolescence, Wiley, London.

Maccoby, E. E. (1959). Role taking in children and its consequences for social learning. Child Dev. 30: 239-252.

Manis, J. G., and Meltzer, B. N. (1972). Symboliclnteraction:A Readerin SocialPsychology, 2nd ed., AIlyn & Bacon, Boston.

Manis, J. G., and Meltzer, B. N. (1978). Symbolic Interaction: A Reader in Social Psychology, 3rd ed., Allyn & Bacon, Boston.

Martin, M. (1968). A role-taking theory of psychopathology. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon. (Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, No. 68-11,957.)

Matza, D. (1969). Becoming Deviant, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. McCall, G. J., and Simmons, J. (1966). Identities and Interaction, Free Press, New York. McGuire, J., and Priestley, P. (1981). Life After School: A Social Skills Curriculum,

Pergamon Press, Oxford. McHugh, P. (1968). Defining the Situation, Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis. Mead, G. H. (1932). The Philosophy of the Present (edited by Murphy, A. E.), Open Court,

Chicago. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist

(edited by C. W. Morris), University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Meltzer, B. N., Petras, J. N., and Reynolds, L. T. (1975). Symbolic Interactionism: Genesis,

Varieties and Criticism, Routlege & Kegan Paul, London. Michelson, L., and Wood, R. (1979). Behavioral assessment and training of children's social

skills. In Hersen, M., Eisler, R. M., and Miller, P. M. (eds.), Progress in Behavior Modification, Vol. 9, Academic Press, New York.

Neale, J. M. (1966). Egocentrism in institutionalized and noninstitutionalized children. Child. Dev. 37: 97-101.

O'Connor, M. (1977). The effect of role-taking training on role-taking and social behaviors in young children. Soc. Behav. Personal. 5: 1-11.

Perinbanayagam, R. S. (1981). The definition of the situation: An analysis of the ethno- methodological and dramaturgical view. In Furnham, A., and Argyle, M. (eds.), The Psychology of Social Situations: Selected Readings, Pergamon, Oxford.

Purkey, W. W. (1970). Self-Concept and School Achievement, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

Social Skills Analysis Using Symbolic interactionism 91

Rathjen, D. P., and Foreyt, J. P. (eds.) (1980). Social Competence: Interventions for Children and Adults, Pergamon, New York,

Reed, C. F., and Caudra, C. A. (1957). The role-taking hypothesis in delinquency. J. Consult. Psychol. 21: 386-390.

Rose, A. M. (1968). A social-psychological theory of neurosis. In Spitzer, S. P., and Denzin, N. K. (eds.), The Mental Patient: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Rothenberg, B. B. (1970). Children's social sensitivity and the relationship to interpersonal competence, intrapersonal comfort, and intellectual level. Dev. Psychol. 2: 335-350.

Rubington, E., and Weinberg, M. S. (eds.) (1973). Deviance; The Interactionist Perspective, 2nd ed., Macmillan, New York.

Saltz, E., and Johnson, J. (1974). Training for thematic-fantasy play in culturally disadvantaged children: Preliminary results. J. Educ. Psychol. 66: 623-630.

Sarbin, T. R. (1954). Role theory. In Lindzey, G. (ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology, Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, Mass.

Scheff, T. J. (1966). Being Mentally Ill: A Sociological Theory. Aldine, Chicago. Scheff, T. J. (1968). The role of the mentally ill and the dynamics of mental disorder:

A research framework. In Spitzer, S. P., and Denzin, N. K. (eds.), TheMentalPatient: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Schinke, S. P. (1981). Interpersonal skills training with adolescence. In Hersen, M., Eiser, R. M., and Miller, P. M. (eds.), Progress in Behavior Modification, Vol. 1 I, Academic Press, New York.

Schur, E. M. (1971). Labeling Deviant Behavior: Its Sociological Implications, Harper & Row, New York.

Selman, R. L. (1976a). Social-cognitive understanding: A guide to educational and clinical practice. In Lickona, T. (ed.), Moral Development and Behavior: Theory, Research and Social Issues. Holt, New York.

Selman, R. L. (1976b). Toward a structural analysis of developing interpersonal relationship concepts: Research with normal and disturbed preadolescent boys. In Pick, A. (ed.), Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology, Vol. 10, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Selman, R. L. (1980). The Growth of Interpersonal Understanding, Academic Press, New York.

Selman, R. L. (1981). The development of interpersonal competence: The role of understanding in conduct. Dev. Rev. 1: 401-422.

Shantz, C. U. (1975). The development of social cognition. In E. M. Hetherington (ed.), Review of Child Development Research, Vol, 5, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Silvern, L. E., Waterman, J. M., Sobesky, W., and Ryan, V. L. (1979). Effects of a developmental model of perspective taking training. Child Dev. 50: 243-246.

Smilansky, S. (1968). The Effects of Sociodramatic Play on Disadvantaged Preschool Children, Wiley, London.

Stebbins, R. A. (1967). A theory of the definition of the situation. Canad. Rev. Sociol. Anthropol. 4: 148-164.

Stebbins, R. A. (1978). Studying the definition of the situation: Theory and field research strategies. In Manis, J. G., and Meltzer, B. M. (eds.), Symbolic Interaction: A Reader in Social Psychology, 3rd ed., AUyn & Bacon, Boston.

Stone, G. P., and Farberman, H. A. (1970). SociaIPsychology Through Symbolic Interaction, Xerox College Publishing, Waltham, Mass.

Thomas, W. I. (1951). Social Behavior and Personality: Contributions of W. I. Thomas to Theory and Social Research, (edited by E. H. Volkart), Social Science Research Coun- cil, New York.

Thompson, L. A. (1968). Role playing ability and social adjustment in children. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California. (Ann Arbor, Mich: University Microfilms, No. 69-4547).

Thorbecke, W., and Grotevant, H. D. (1982). Gender differences in adolescent interpersonal identity formation. J. Youth Adoles. 11: 479-492.

92 Russell

Trent, R. D. (1957). Socioempathic ability in a group of institutionalized delinquent boys. J. Genet. PsychoL 91: 99-108.

Trower, P., Bryant, B., and Argyle, M. (1978). Social Skills and Mental Health, Methuen, London.

Turnure, C. (1975). Cognitive development and role-taking ability in boys and girls from 7 to 12. Dev. Psychol. 11: 202-209.

Twentyman, C. T., and Zimering, R. T. (1979). Behavioral training of social skills: A critical review. In Hersen, M., Eisler, R. M., and Miller, P. M. (eds.), Progress in Behavior Modification, (Vol. 7), Academic Press, New York,

Waller, W. (1961). The Sociology of Teaching, Wiley, New York. Wilkinson, G. W. (1974). Psychiatric disorder dramaturgically considered. Socio. Quart. 15:

143-158.

a social skills analysis in childhood and adolescence using symbolic interactionism

Documents