The Impact of Social Context on Interaction Patterns

This paper examines the degree to which the constraints imposed by various social contexts influence social interaction. We draw on two data sets. In each, we compare the patterning of interaction of the same individuals across different contexts. If minimal constraints are imposed, then the interaction patterns among the individuals in the two contexts should be similar. But if one of the contexts involves major constraints, then interaction patterns in the two should differ. The results suggest further that the constraints found in any context are not unlimited in their impact. Moreover, individuals who can, apparently do manipulate the context to minimize the constraint imposed by the context. Introduction: The Problem People generally seem to believe that the patterning of human interaction -who interacts with whom and how much -is simply a matter of individual choice on the part of those involved. Partners for interaction are believed to be chosen on the basis of individual feelings, or sentiments. Many sociologists have embraced a modified version of this view. They believe as Newcomb, Turner and Converse (1965, p. 218, italics added) put it, "we communicate most frequently, if we can, with those toward whom we are most strongly attracted." The qualifier "if we can" suggests that although individuals do make sentiment-based choices of interaction partners, such choices are not completely unrestricted (Simmel, 1908/1950, 1923/1955; Homans, 1950; Blau, 1964/1986, 1977; Fischer et al. 1977; Feld, 1981; Fischer, 1982; Blau and Schwartz, 1984, Marsden and Campbell, 1984; Freeman, 1992; van der Poel, 1993). From this perspective, then, the choices made by individuals are seen as constrained, as Blau (1964/1986, p. xiv) put it, by "external conditions that provide or restrict the opportunities to realize these choices." The sociologists' version of this idea has great intuitive appeal. And, at one level, it is almost certainly true. People do seem to choose their partners for interaction, but all sorts of external factors have the obvious potential to facilitate or to inhibit interaction between two individuals. Communication between particular workers may be an explicit requirement of their employment contracts. Avoidance between specified relatives may be dictated by a cultural rule that entails a strong sanction to be imposed on violators. Direct communication between two individuals who happen to be physically distant from each Page 1 of 13 The Impact of Social Context on Interaction Patterns 3/12/01 http://www.library.cmu.edu:7850/JoSS/webster/Webster.html other may be impossible if they lack a written language, telephones or radios, but relatively simple for those with the appropriate technology (Festinger, Schachter and Back, 1950; Hagerstrand, 1967; Coombs, 1973; Freeman, 1979). According to Homans (1950, pp. 88-94), Feld (1981) and Fischer (1982), who interacts with whom can be constrained by all sorts of physical, technical, social and cultural aspects of the environment, or context, in which the interaction takes place. The core of this intuitive idea is that, based on their personal preferences, individuals have more or less stable dispositions to interact with particular others, but that these individual dispositions are constrained by features present in the contexts in which interaction takes place. Thus, who interacts with whom in any particular context will depend both on preferences and on the constraints that are operating in that context. Our problem here is to determine how much impact the constraints have in a given context. If there were some context that mobilized no constraints at all, we would expect the patterning of interaction to reflect the pure preference patterns of the individuals. And if the constraints present in a context completely governed who interacted with whom, the patterning of interaction would reveal nothing about the preference structure at all. In real life, of course, we would never expect to observe either of these extremes. As Granovetter (1985, p.487) put it, "Actors do not behave or decide as atoms outside a social context, nor do they adhere slavishly to a script written for them by the particular intersection of social categories that they happen to occupy. Their attempts at purposive action are instead embedded in concrete, ongoing systems of social relations." So, realistically, we should expect to find some contexts in which constraints have a major impact and others in which their impact is small. We could examine the question of how much constraint was imposed by a particular context by recording, for that context, how much each individual interacted with each other individual and comparing that patterning with the patterning of interaction in a different context. From that comparison, we can learn something about their impacts. We begin with a collection of individuals who interact in more than one context. Suppose we select two of those contexts and observe interaction in each. If we select them in such a way that we would expect neither one to impose much constraint at all, we would expect that individual choices would play a major role in both contexts. In that case, the patterning of who interacts with whom should correspond closely in the two. But if we select two contexts such that we would expect major constraints to operate in one and only minor ones to be present in the other, we should see a large impact of constraints in the first context, and only a small impact in the second. In that case, the patterning of who interacts with whom would be quite different in the two contexts. That is precisely the approach of the present paper. We will introduce two data sets. Each of the data sets is based on systematic observation of the interaction frequencies linking the members of a bounded collection of individuals. And, in each case, interaction patterns are observed in two different contexts. In the first of our two data sets, there is no reason to believe that either of the two contexts of interaction should impose much constraint on who interacts with whom. In our second data set, one of the contexts can be expected to impose little constraint, but, because of the functional requirements of the organization, the other context can be expected to impose severe restrictions on interaction. By comparing the similarities and differences in the patterning of the two pairs of measures under these differing constraint conditions, we should be able to assess directly the degree to which interaction frequencies are vulnerable to at least some kinds of context-based constraints. The First Data Set: A Residence Hall Cynthia Webster (Webster, 1993; 1994) collected the first data set in a university residence hall during Page 2 of 13 The Impact of Social Context on Interaction Patterns 3/12/01 http://www.library.cmu.edu:7850/JoSS/webster/Webster.html the third term of the school year. The residence hall housed 42 undergraduate students. Thirty-nine residents, 19 females and 20 males, participated in the study. The residents, of course, interacted in a wide range of social activities. To compare the subjects' interaction patterns, two different contexts were chosen and interaction in each of these contexts was systematically observed over an eight-week period Subjects were observed eating together in the dining facility. The facility accommodated 1223 students who resided in one of 23 different residence halls. The facility contained three separate rooms for dining and was open for two hours at each mealtime. All residents were free to choose when, where and with whom among the 1223 others to eat. The participants in this study were observed in the dining facility for 26 mealtimes, 14 lunches and 12 dinners. Records of who ate with whom were made. There were 157 occasions in which two or more of the subjects were observed eating a meal together at the same table. These observations were summed and a 39 by 39, person by person, EAT matrix was constructed. Each cell in the EAT matrix is a record of the number of occasions on which the row person and the column person were observed eating together. The principal diagonal is the number of occasions on which the person in question was seen eating with anyone. Subjects also were observed once a week for two hours at a regularly scheduled social meeting. The meetings took place in the common room of the residence hall, not the dining facility. The announced purpose of the meetings was to get the residents together to talk, eat and have a break from studying. Similar to the first context, attendance was not mandatory and there were no formal rules limiting interaction. Unlike the eating context, the meetings were open only to the participants. Collections of individuals observed in conversation with one another were noted. In total, there were 139 events in which two or more subjects were seen interacting. These observations were summed in the same way and a 39 by 39, person by person, MEET matrix was constructed For the Residence data, then, both of the contexts in which data were recorded appear to be relatively unconstrained. There were no specified rules requiring or inhibiting interaction. The second data set is different in this respect. The Second Data Set: A Restaurant Christa Aufdemberg, who acted as a participant observer on the staff of an established Southern California restaurant, collected the second data set. The restaurant served lunch six days and dinner four nights a week. The owners were a married couple who managed a staff of 18 employees. These included 8 females (all working as waitresses) and 10 males (one working as a waiter, three as cooks, four as busboys, one as a salad maker and one as a dish washer). These employees ranged from 19 to 44 years of age. Two distinct contexts to record data on interaction among the people who work in this restaurant were chosen. Over an eight-week period, the observer was present each day and kept systematic records of who interacted with whom over all of the shifts during each workday. These records were summed for the period of observation and recorded as a 20 by 20 WORK matrix. During the same eight-week period, the observer was also present before the start and after the end of each workday. She noted all the occasions on which restaurant employees arrived or departed together or commented on, or made plans for, joint outside activities. These were summed and recorded as a 20 by 20 PLAY matrix. Given our intuitive conception of the link between interaction and constraint, it is reasonable to expect Page 3 of 13 The Impact of Social Context on Interaction Patterns 3/12/01 http://www.library.cmu.edu:7850/JoSS/webster/Webster.html that these two matrices, WORK and PLAY, might differ. Like the EAT and MEET matrices described above, there is no basis for assuming that the PLAY matrix is subject to any major external constraints. Although some of these individuals had other jobs, spouses, children and recreational interests that made demands on their time, they were free to spend their leisure time with, or apart from, any of their restaurant co-workers. But, in contrast, when they were at work at least some of their interactions were apt to be dictated by the tasks at hand. As restaurant personnel, these 20 individuals were responsible for the purchase, preparation and delivery of food and for maintaining the appearance of the restaurant. The goal of the organization was to attract and maintain customers, and a good deal of interaction was necessary to achieve that goal. The managers needed to interact with all of their employees about schedules. They also had to interact with servers about floor assignments and seating customers and with cooks about menu planning and ordering food. Servers needed to interact with cooks about food orders and with busboys about setting up and clearing tables. Cooks had to interact with each other and with the salad maker in order to get food ready and to fill orders. Everyone involved in the enterprise had at least some organizational responsibilities that involved interaction with specific others. Each person had a distinct job at work and that job had the potential to constrain a good deal of his or her interaction on the job.