{"content":[{"text":"During the most recent past, researchers have incorporated several impor- \n tant features into ICT. First, the view of meanings was expanded to include not \n only symbolic meanings with which symbolic interaction had been identiﬁed, \n but also sign meanings as tied to resources, that is, things that function to sus- \n tain a person, an interaction, or a group (Burke, 1997, 2004a; Freese & Burke, \n 1994). Second, ICT was extended to include identities that are tied not only \n to roles (role identities), but also to groups or categories (social identities) and \n to the person as a unique individual (person identities) (Burke, 1997, 2004b; \n Stets, 1995; Stets & Burke, 2000). Third, the theory was developed to include \n the emotional reactions that people have in response to identity conﬁrmation \n and disconﬁrmation (Burke, 1991, 2004a; Burke & Harrod, 2005; Stets, 2003b, \n 2004, 2005; Stets & Tsushima, 2001). \n A fourth development was bringing the social structure, speciﬁcally one’s \n status, into ICT to show its inﬂuence on the identity veriﬁcation process (Cast, \n Stets, & Burke, 1999; Stets, 2004; Stets & Burke, 1996; Stets & Harrod, 2004). \n Fifth was the incorporation of the idea from James (1890) that people pos- \n sess many identities that need veriﬁcation (Burke, 2002, 2003; Stets, 1995; \n Stets & Harrod, 2004). These multiple identities are arranged in a hierarchical \n structure, with the output from an identity higher in the hierarchy being the \n reference or standard for an identity just below it (Burke, 1997; Burke & Cast, \n 1997; Stets & Carter, 2005; Stets & Harrod, 2004; Tsushima & Burke, 1999). \n Researchers also began to discover how individuals take on and lose identities, \n or more broadly, how identity standards slowly change with changing output of \n higher-level identities (Burke & Cast, 1997; Cast et al., 1999). Finally, to place \n more emphasis on interaction in dyads and groups, there was also the inclusion \n of the idea that in many social setting there are multiple persons, each with \n their own identities, all seeking to have all of their identities conﬁrmed (Burke, \n 2005; Burke & Stets, 1999; Cast et al., 1999; Riley & Burke, 1995). \n In all of the above developments, what has remained relatively unexamined \n is the nature of the discrepancy between the perceived self-relevant meanings \n in the situation and the self-deﬁning meanings in the identity standard. In \n the present paper, we explore the nature of the discrepancy more fully as it is \n embedded within the social structural arrangements in which identities exists. \n We develop some hypotheses about the emotional consequences of variations in \n the nature and source of a discrepancy, when it exists. First, we brieﬂy review \n the nature of identities as understood in ICT.","bbox":{"left":0.218575,"top":0.158044,"width":0.5616240000000001,"height":0.543405}},{"text":"2","bbox":{"left":0.218575,"top":0.724899,"width":0.013618999999999992,"height":0.021718000000000015}},{"text":"Identity Control Theory","bbox":{"left":0.255636,"top":0.724899,"width":0.255837,"height":0.021718000000000015}},{"text":"2.1 Identities \n Within ICT, an identity is the set of meanings that deﬁne who one is in terms \n of a group or classiﬁcation (such as being an American or female), in terms of \n a role (for example, a stockbroker or a truck driver), or in terms of personal \n attributes (as in being friendly or honest). For the role identity spouse, for","bbox":{"left":0.218575,"top":0.759363,"width":0.561624,"height":0.086978}},{"text":"2","bbox":{"left":0.494859,"top":0.875051,"width":0.009050999999999976,"height":0.015082999999999958}}],"images_bbox":[],"images_bbox_not_text_overlap":[]}