ROLE SET

ROLE SET

-ROLE SET A ROLE SET IS ANYONE YOU HAVE A RECURRING RELATIONSHIP WITH IN
YOUR ROLE. ACCORDING TO GOFFMAN THE "ROLE SET" IS THE VARIOUS KINDS OF
RELEVANT AUDIENCES FOR A PARTICULAR ROLE. MERTON DESCRIBES "ROLE SET""
AS THE "COMPLEMENT OF SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS IN WHICH PERSONS ARE
INVOLVED BECAUSE THEY OCCUPY A PARTICULAR SOCIAL STATUS." FOR
INSTANCE, THE ROLE OF A DOCTOR HAS A ROLE SET COMPRISING COLLEAGUES,
NURSES. PATIENTS, HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATORS, ETC. THE TERM "ROLE SET" WAS
COINED BY ROBERT K. MERTON IN 1957. HE MADE A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN
A "ROLE SET" AND A "STATUS SET".
 ROLE TAKING THEORY
-ROLE-TAKING THEORY. OR SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE TAKING. IS THE SOCIOLOGICAL
THEORY THAT ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS IN FACILITATING SOCIAL
COGNITION IN CHILDREN IS THE GROWING ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND OTHERS'
FEELINGS AND PERSPECTIVES, AN ABILITY THAT EMERGES AS A RESULT OF
GENERAL COGNITIVE GROWTH. PART OF THIS PROCESS REQUIRES THAT CHILDREN
COME TO REALIZE THAT OTHERS' VIEWS MAY DIFFER FROM THEIR OWN. ROLE-
TAKING ABILITY INVOLVES UNDERSTANDING THE COGNITIVE AND AFFECTIVE (I.E.
RELATING TO MOODS, EMOTIONS, AND ATTITUDES) ASPECTS OF ANOTHER
PERSON'S POINT OF VIEW AND DIFFERS FROM PERCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVE TAKING,
WHICH IS THE ABILITY TO RECOGNIZE ANOTHER PERSON'S VISUAL POINT OF VIEW
OF THE ENVIRONMENT.
 SELMAN'S THEORY OF ROLE-TAKING
DEVELOPMENT
-SELMAN DEVELOPED HIS DEVELOPMENTAL THEORY OF ROLE TAKING ABILITY BASE ON
FOUR SOURCES. THE FIRST IS THE WORK OF FEFFER AND FEFFER AND GOUREVITCH,
WHICH RELATED ROLE TAKING ABILITY TO PINGET'S THEORY OF SOCIAL DECENTERING
AND DEVELOPED A PROJECTIVE TEST TO ASSESS CHILDREN'S ABILITY TO DECENTER AS
THEY MATURE. THE SECOND IS THE RESEARCH OF FLAVELL, WHICH STUDIED CHILDREN'S
GROWING ABILITIES TO JUDGE OTHER PEOPLE'S CONCEPTUAL AND PERCEPTUAL
PERSPECTIVES. THE THIRD IS THE DEVELOPMENTAL IDEAS OF DIFFERENTATION
WHEREUPON ONE LEARN TO DISTINGUISH HIS/HER PERSPECTIVE FROM THE
PERSPECTIVES OF OTHERS, AND INTEGRATION THE ABILITY TO RELATE ONE'S
PERSPECTIVE TO THE PERSPECTIVES OF OTHERS. THE FINAL SOURCE INFLUENCE COMES
FROM SELMAN'S OWN PREVIOUS RESEARCH WHERE HE ASSESSED CHILDREN'S ABILITY TO
DESCRIBE THE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES OF CHARACTERS IN A STORY.
 STAGES
LEVEL 0: EGOCENTRIC ROLE TAKING (AGES 3-6, ROUGHLY)
THIS STAGE IS CHARACTERIZED BY TWO LACKING ABILITIES. THE FIRST IS THE FAILURE
TO DISTINGUISH PERSPECTIVES (DIFFERENTIATION). MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE CHILD IS
UNABLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN HIS PERSPECTIVE, INCLUDING HIS PERSPECTIVE ON WHY
A SOCIAL ACTION OCCURRED, AND THAT OF OTHERS. THE SECOND ABILITY THE CHILD LACKS
IS RELATING PERSPECTIVES (INTEGRATION).

LEVEL 1: SUBJECTIVE ROLE TAKING (AGES 6-8, ROUGHLY)

CHILDREN NOW RECOGNIZE THAT THEY AND OTHERS IN A SITUATION MAY HAVE
DIFFERENT INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THEM, AND THUS MAY DIFFER IN THEIR VIEWS. IN
OTHER WORDS CHILDREN HAVE MATURED IN DIFFERENTIATION. THE CHILD STILL
SIGNIFICANTLY LACKS INTEGRATION ABILITY, HOWEVER: HE/SHE CANNOT UNDERSTAND
THAT HIS VIEWS ARE INFLUENCED BY THE VIEWS OF OTHERS, AND VICE VERSA, AD INFINITUM
LEVEL 2: SELF-REFLECTIVE ROLE TAKING (AGES 8-10, ROUGHLY)
THE CHILD'S DIFFERENTIATION ABILITY MATURES AT THIS AGE ENOUGH SO THAT HE/SHE
UNDERSTANDS THAT PEOPLE CAN ALSO DIFFER IN THEIR SOCIAL PERSPECTIVES BECAUSE O
THEIR PARTICULARLY HELD AND DIFFERING VALUES AND SET OF PURPOSES.

LEVEL 3: MUTUAL ROLE TAKING (AGES 10-12, ROUGHLY)

IN THIS STAGE, THE CHILD CAN NOW DIFFERENTIATE HIS/HER OWN PERSPECTIVE FROM
THE VIEWPOINT LIKELY FOR THE AVERAGE MEMBER OF THE GROUP. IN ADDITION, THE CHILD
CAN TAKE THE VIEW OF A DETACHED THIRD-PERSON AND VIEW A SITUATION FROM THAT
PERSPECTIVE.

LEVEL 4: SOCIETAL ROLE TAKING (AGES 12-15+, ROUGHLY)

THE ADOLESCENT NOW CONSIDERS OTHERS PERSPECTIVES WITH REFERENCE TO THE
SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT AND CULTURE THE OTHER PERSON COMES FROM, ASSUMING THAT THE
OTHER PERSON WILL BELIEVE AND ACT IN ACCORD TO THEIR SOCIETY'S NORMS AND VALUES.
 RELATION TO OTHER TOPICS
PIAGET'S THEORY OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
JEAN PIAGET STRESSED THE IMPORTANCE OF PLAY IN CHILDREN, ESPECIALLY PLAY
THAT INVOLVES ROLE TAKING. HE BELIEVED THAT ROLE TAKING PLAY IN CHILDREN
PROMOTES A MORE MATURE SOCIAL UNDERSTANDING BY TEACHING CHILDREN TO TAKE
ON THE ROLES OF OTHERS, ALLOWING THEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT DIFFERENT PEOPLE
CAN HAVE DIFFERING PERSPECTIVES.

KOHLBERG'S STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

LAWRENCE KOHLBERG ARGUED THAT HIGHER MORAL DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES ROLE
TAKING ABILITY. FOR INSTANCE, KOHLBERG'S CONVENTIONAL LEVEL OF MORALITY
(BETWEEN AGES 9 AND 13, ROUGHIY), INVOLVES MORAL STEREOTYPING, EMPATHY-BASED
MORALITY, ALERTNESS TO AND BEHAVIOUR GUIDED BY PREDICTED EVALUATIONS BY
OTHERS, AND IDENTIFYING WITH AUTHORITY, ALL OF WHICH REQUIRE ROLE TAKING.
RELATION BETWEEN KOHLBERG'S STAGES, PIAGET'S THEORY, AND
SELMAN'S THEORY

KOHLBERG AND PIAGET BOTH EMPHASIZED THAT ROLE TAKING ABILITY

FACILITATES MORAL DEVELOPMENT. KOHLBERG ARGUED THAT COGNITIVE AND ROLE
TAKING DEVELOPMENT ARE REQUIRED BUT NOT SUFFICIENT FOR MORAL
DEVELOPMENT. IN TURN, HE MAINTAINED THAT PIAGET'S COGNITIVE
DEVELOPMENTAL STAGES UNDERLIE SELMAN'S ROLE TAKING STAGES, WHICH ARE
SUBSEQUENTLY FUNDAMENTAL TO HIS OWN MORAL DEVELOPMENTAL STAGES. THIS
PREDICTS THAT COGNITION DEVELOPS FIRST, FOLLOWED BY THE CORRESPONDING
ROLE TAKING STAGE, AND FINALLY CORRESPONDING MORAL STAGE, AND NEVER THE
OTHER WAY AROUND.
 Stages of Moral Development

Kohlberg's theory is broken down into three primary levels. At each level of
moral development, there are two stages. Similar to how Piaget believed
that not all people reach the highest levels of cognitive development,
Kohlberg believed not everyone progresses to the highest stages of moral
development.
 Level 1. Preconventional Morality
Preconventional morality is the earliest period of moral development. It lasts until around the age of 9. At this
age, children's decisions are primarily shaped by the expectations of adults and the consequences for breaking
the rules. There are two stages within this level:

Stage 1 (Obedience and Punishment): The earliest stages of moral development, obedience
and punishment are especially common in young children, but adults are also capable of expressing
this type of reasoning. According to Kohlberg, people at this stage see rules as fixed and
absolute. Obeying the rules is important because it is a way to avoid punishment.

Stage 2 (Individualism and Exchange): At the individualism and exchange stage of moral

development, children account for individual points of view and judge actions based on how they
serve individual needs. In the Heinz dilemma, children argued that the best course of action was the
choice that best served Heinz’s needs. Reciprocity is possible at this point in moral development, but
only if it serves one's own interests.
 Level 2. Conventional Morality

The next period of moral development is marked by the acceptance of social rules regarding what is good and
moral. During this time, adolescents and adults internalize the moral standards they have learned from their role
models and from society.
This period also focuses on the acceptance of authority and conforming to the norms of the group. There are two
stages at this level of morality:

Stage 3 (Developing Good Interpersonal Relationships): Often referred to as the "good boy-
good girl" orientation, this stage of the interpersonal relationship of moral development is focused on
living up to social expectations and roles.7 There is an emphasis on conformity, being "nice," and
consideration of how choices influence relationships.

Stage 4 (Maintaining Social Order): This stage is focused on ensuring that social order is
maintained. At this stage of moral development, people begin to consider society as a whole when
making judgments. The focus is on maintaining law and order by following the rules, doing one’s
duty, and respecting authority.
 Level 3. Postconventional Morality

At this level of moral development, people develop an understanding of abstract principles of morality. The
two stages at this level are:

Stage 5 (Social Contract and Individual Rights): The ideas of a social contract and
individual rights cause people in the next stage to begin to account for the differing values,
opinions, and beliefs of other people.7 Rules of law are important for maintaining a society, but
members of the society should agree upon these standards.

Stage 6 (Universal Principles): Kohlberg’s final level of moral reasoning is based on

universal ethical principles and abstract reasoning. At this stage, people follow these internalized
principles of justice, even if they conflict with laws and rules.
 PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

ROLE TAKING ABILITY AND PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOURS AND FEELINGS HAVE BEEN
ARGUED TO BE RELATED. EVIDENCE FOR THIS CLAIM HAS BEEN FOUND FROM MANY
SOURCES. UNDERWOOD AND MOORE HAVE FOUND THAT PERCEPTUAL, AFFECTIVE, AND
COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVE TAKING ARE POSITIVELY CORRELATED WITH PROSOCIAL
BEHAVIOUR.

SOCIAL FUNCTIONING
A CHILD'S ABILITY TO FUNCTION IN SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS HAS BEEN FOUND TO
DEPEND PARTIALLY ON HIS/HER ROLE-TAKING ABILITY. FOR INSTANCE, RESEARCHERS
FOUND THAT CHILDREN POOR IN ROLE- TAKING ABILITY HAD GREATER DIFFICULTY IN
FORMING AND SUSTAINING SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS, AS WELL AS RECEIVING LOWER
PEER NOMINATIONS.
 APPLICATIONS
ADHD (ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER)
CHILDREN WITH ADHD STRUGGLE IN THEIR SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTS, BUT THE SOCIAL-
COGNITIVE REASONS FOR THIS ARE UNKNOWN. SEVERAL STUDIES HAVE INDICATED A
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHILDREN WITH AND WITHOUT ADHD ON THEIR ROLE TAKING
ABILITY, WHEREIN CHILDREN WITH ADHD HAVE LOWER ROLE TAKING ABILITY, LOWER ROLE
TAKING USE, AND SLOWER ROLE TAKING DEVELOPMENT THAN CHILDREN WITHOUT ADHD.
DELINQUENCY AND SOCIAL-SKILLS TRAINING
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHILDHOOD AND ADOLESCENT DELINQUENCY AND ROLE
TAKING IS CONSIDERABLE. BURACK FOUND THAT MALTREATED CHILDREN AND
ADOLESCENTS WITH BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS EXHIBITED EGOCENTRISM AT HIGHER
LEVELS THAN NON-MALTREATED CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS WHO HAD PROGRESSED
FASTER AND MORE EXPECTEDLY IN THEIR ROLE TAKING DEVELOPMENT.
 AUTISM
SEVERAL RESEARCHERS HAVE ARGUED THAT THE DEFICITS IN THE SOCIAL
LIVES, COMMUNICATION ABILITY, AND IMAGINATION OF AUTISTIC CHILDREN ARE
A RESULT OF THEIR DEFICIENCIES IN ROLE TAKING. IT IS BELIEVED THAT AUTISTIC
CHILDREN'S INABILITY TO ROLE TAKE PREVENTS THEM FROM DEVELOPING A
THEORY OF MIND.

CRITICISM
THE MAIN CRITICISM OF SELMAN'S ROLE-TAKING THEORY IS THAT IT FOCUSES
TOO MUCH ON THE EFFECT OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT ON ROLE-TAKING
ABILITY AND SOCIAL COGNITION, THEREBY OVERLOOKING THE NON-COGNITIVE
FACTORS THAT AFFECT CHILDREN'S ABILITIES IN THESE DOMAINS.