Role Salience, Role Embracement, and the Symbolic Self‐Completion of Sorority Pledges

Abstract

According to symbolic self‐completion theory, people who feel status anxiety may engage in self‐symbolization, resulting in the adoption of symbols used to bolster identity. Self‐symbolization is an idealized condition that occurs when a person's status is legitimized by others who accept these symbols as valid status markers. While some studies support this perspective, others have identified blind spots and suggest revision. The current research suggests that role theory be incorporated with this perspective. In this article, the sorority experience is analyzed as a rite of passage in which high levels of role salience produce role embracement and symbolic self‐completion. Symbolic self‐completion theory is made more robust by analyzing the use of visual symbols as expressions of social roles.

Predictors of alcohol use during the first year of college: Implications for prevention

“…During this time fraternities and sororities systematically limit the social contact pledges can have with non-members, and force them to form tight, intimate groups (Arthur, 1997;Sweet, 1999). The pledge must learn house rituals, demonstrate loyalty to fellow members, and earn a place in the organization.…”

Dress and the Social Construction of Gender in Two Sororities

“…Over time, as a person feels secure in the status, needs for self-symbolizing decrease (See Arthur, 1997;Lafferty & Dickey, 1980;Wicklund & Gollwitzer, 1982). Pledges reported acute feelings of status insecurity.…”

Human Complexity: Development of a Theoretical Framework for the Clothing and Textile Field

“…. Th e use of Addison, a library electronic card catalog, provided additional references to works by specifi c authors and gener- (1952,1975); Gottlieb, Whalsten, & Lickliter (1998);Rosen (1972); Lewontin (1982); Nice (1988) Cognitive theory Clothing and Textiles Arthur (1997); Cerny (1993); Damhorst (1984Damhorst ( -1985; Davis (1989); Eicher Symbolic interaction (1995); Forney & Rabolt (1990); Horn (1975); Kaiser (1990Kaiser ( , 1996; Lennon & Cultural theory Davis (1989); Miller (1997); Pannabecker (1997); Pederson (1984 Banathy (1991); Gardner (1990); Laszlo (1972a,b,c;1975; Johnson (1997); Ritzer (1991); Stone (1965) Cybernetics Symbolic interaction ated listings of documents on specifi c subjects, such as systems theory. controlled by the emerging theory.…”

“…Within the social environment category, an individual or groups of individuals have a coactive relationship with others that impact human development and learning (e.g., Arthur, 1997;Banathy, 1991;Davis, 1989;Kaiser, 1990Kaiser, , 1996Laszlo, 1995;Sontag & Schlater, 1995). Within the social environment category, an individual or groups of individuals have a coactive relationship with others that impact human development and learning (e.g., Arthur, 1997;Banathy, 1991;Davis, 1989;Kaiser, 1990Kaiser, , 1996Laszlo, 1995;Sontag & Schlater, 1995).…”

“…Human relationships with the social environment provide a context for interaction and a forum of social meaning to human concerns such as gender and dress (e.g., Arthur;Horn, 1975). Human relationships with the social environment provide a context for interaction and a forum of social meaning to human concerns such as gender and dress (e.g., Arthur;Horn, 1975).…”