Minding the gap: Meaning, affect, and the potential shortcomings of vignettes

Despite an ongoing debate over the validity of vignettes, little research has explored either why, or in what research areas, the vignette method may be particularly problematic. In this paper, we draw on Affect Control Theory (ACT) to directly investigate the difference between vignettes and a more experiential method in research on social exchange and alternative dispute resolution. Using ACT’s affective dimensions of evaluation, potency, and activity, as well as its concept of deflection, we compare the affective responses of participants in two types of experimental simulations – vignettes and a laboratory experiment. Results suggest that a more tangible experience, like that present in our laboratory experiment, leads to greater deflection, therefore increasing the intensity of emotion and altering affective meanings. We argue that these findings could have important implications for research, particularly in areas exploring affective and cognitive outcomes of interaction.

[1]  Brian Parkinson,et al.  Making Sense of Emotion in Stories and Social Life , 1993 .

[2]  N. Mckeganey,et al.  Contrasting methods of collecting data on injectors' risk behaviour. , 1996, AIDS care.

[3]  L. Smith-Lovin THE AFFECTIVE CONTROL OF EVENTS WITHIN SETTINGS , 1987 .

[4]  R. Rosenthal Experimenter effects in behavioral research , 1968 .

[5]  John Thibaut,et al.  A Theory of Procedure , 1978 .

[6]  Jerald Greenberg,et al.  Equity and Justice in Social Behavior , 1982 .

[7]  A Prospective on the Role of Attributions , 1978 .

[8]  L. Smith-Lovin,et al.  Affect Control Theory , 2006 .

[9]  Lynn Smith-Lovin,et al.  Impressions from events , 1987 .

[10]  R. F. Kidd,et al.  Reactions to inequity , 1978 .

[11]  T. Yamagishi,et al.  Social exchange and reciprocity: confusion or a heuristic? , 2000, Evolution and human behavior : official journal of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society.

[12]  S. Sprecher How men and women expect to feel and behave in response to inequity in close relationships , 1992 .

[13]  G. Jasso,et al.  Assessing the gender gap in just earnings and its underlying mechanisms , 1999 .

[14]  Lisa Slattery Rashotte Written versus visual stimuli in the study of impression formation , 2003 .

[15]  G. Jasso,et al.  Distributive Justice and CEO Compensation , 2007 .

[16]  R. Hughes Considering the Vignette Technique and its Application to a Study of Drug Injecting and HIV Risk and Safer Behaviour , 1998 .

[17]  J. Finch The Vignette Technique in Survey Research , 1987 .

[18]  N. MacKinnon,et al.  Symbolic Interactionism as Affect Control , 1994 .

[19]  D. R. Heise,et al.  Emotion Norms in Interpersonal Events , 1995 .

[20]  J. Rubin,et al.  Negotiation , 1983 .

[21]  Gary Alan Fine,et al.  Sociological Perspectives On Social Psychology , 2009 .

[22]  Peter H. Rossi,et al.  Measuring social judgments : the factorial survey approach , 1983 .

[23]  J. Collett Is procedural justice enough? Affect, attribution, and conflict in alternative dispute resolution , 2008 .

[24]  David R Schaefer,et al.  Conflict and Fairness in Social Exchange , 2006 .

[25]  D. Gould Using vignettes to collect data for nursing research studies: how valid are the findings? , 1996, Journal of clinical nursing.

[26]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  Egocentric Interpretations of Fairness and Interpersonal Conflict , 1992 .

[27]  C. Osgood,et al.  The Measurement of Meaning , 1958 .

[28]  S. M. Nelson Redefining a Bizarre Situation: Relative Concept Stability in Affect Control Theory , 2006 .

[29]  E. Lawler An Affect Theory of Social Exchange1 , 2001, American Journal of Sociology.

[30]  L. Tiedens,et al.  Get mad and get more than even : When and why anger expression is effective in negotiations , 2006 .

[31]  Raymond M. Lee,et al.  Doing Research on Sensitive Topics , 1993 .

[32]  T. Abel,et al.  Mind, Self, and Society , 1934 .

[33]  Karen A. Hegtvedt Social Determinants of Perception: Power, Equity, and Status Effects in an Exchange Situation , 1988 .

[34]  P. Burke,et al.  Contemporary Social Psychological Theories , 2006 .

[35]  R. Lazarus Emotion and Adaptation , 1991 .

[36]  Dafna Eylon,et al.  Beyond contractual interpretation: bias in arbitrators' case perceptions and award recommendations , 2000 .

[37]  P. Rossi,et al.  Rejoinder to Faia , 1980, American Journal of Sociology.

[38]  G. Jasso,et al.  Distributive Justice and Earned Income , 1977 .

[39]  K. Cook,et al.  Power and Equity: What Counts in Attributions for Exchange Outcomes? , 1993 .

[40]  Stuart S. Nagel,et al.  Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis , 1976 .

[41]  L. Smith-Lovin,et al.  Analyzing Social Interaction: Advances in Affect Control Theory , 1988 .

[42]  Karen A. Hegtvedt,et al.  Fairness and Emotions: Reactions to the Process and Outcomes of Negotiations , 1999 .

[43]  Karl J. Mackie A Handbook of dispute resolution : ADR in action , 1991 .

[44]  D. R. Heise Understanding Events: Affect and the Construction of Social Action , 1981 .

[45]  H. Becker,et al.  The Use of Vignettes in Survey Research , 1978 .

[46]  M. A. Faia The Vagaries of the Vignette World: A Comment on Alves and Rossi , 1980, American Journal of Sociology.

[47]  David R. Heise,et al.  Modified social identities: Amalgamations, attributions, and emotions , 1987 .

[48]  B. Carlson Dating Violence , 1996 .

[49]  Gretchen Peterson,et al.  IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER: PROCEDURAL JUSTICE IN SOCIAL EXCHANGE , 2003 .

[50]  Karen A. Hegtvedt The effects of relationship structure on emotional responses to inequity , 1990 .

[51]  Ronald L. Cohen,et al.  Perceiving Justice: An Attributional Perspective , 1982 .

[52]  M. Hassebrauck The influence of misattributions on reactions to inequity: Towards a further understanding of Inequity , 1987 .

[53]  James A. Wall,et al.  Mediation , 2001 .