Explaining Variance in Affect Control Theory: Cultural Consensus, Deflection, and Redefinition

Abstract

Affect Control Theory (ACT) conceives of affective sentiments as sharedmeanings among individuals within a single culture. Recognizing the theory's potentialto explain cultural differences and behavior patterns, many researchers aim to test andapply ACT's insights to within- and across-culture analysis. The growth of the theory'spopularity necessitates a review and exposition of the theory's fundamentalmethodological assumptions and its causal mechanism, deflection. Using data from the2003 Indiana EPA dictionary, I map the distribution of fundamental U.S. sentiments inEPA space, define two new conceptions of deflection, map the universe of eventcurrently measureable deflections, and discuss the ramifications of these findings forpast and future research.I critique ACT's operationalization of "shared meaning" as mean point estimatescalculated from individuals' numeric ratings on semantic differential scales. Pastresearch attributes variation in concept ratings to two sources: unsystematic error in themeasurement tool and imperfect cultural inculcation among respondents. By taking aconcept-focused approach, I show that variation between respondents is structured bythe institutional affiliation of identity concepts and concept labels' word difficulty. Thispattern exists even when controlling for individual-level characteristics, the traditionallyascribed reason for variation in concept ratings.I replicate a well-known ACT study that found support for the dynamic behaviorredefinition hypothesis and did not find support for ACT's redefinition hypothesis. Imake the design more robust and test both the original findings and my claims aboutthe role of institutions in ACT. I find support for the dynamic behavior hypothesis,partial support for the ACT hypothesis, and support for the claim that individualsdepend on institutional information inherent in identity meanings.