This dissertation formulates a poetics of performance in nonfiction film and television. Building on a large body of converging research that calls for an acknowledgment of: the constructedness of documentary texts; the performative nature of identity; and the significance of screen performance, I illustrate the way in which documentary subjects must finally be seen as creative agents who (consciously or not) play a significant role in determining the meanings, functions, and effects of the films in which they appear. A first chapter lays the groundwork for this discussion, setting out a means of understanding and investigating the documentary performer’s work. It is argued that nonfiction performance is a three-tiered process, wherein everyday performative activity (tier #1) is shaped by and often tailored to the camera (tier #2) within specific nonfiction film frameworks (tier #3). In addition to providing a flexible and generally applicable model of what the nonfiction subject’s work entails, this conceptualization suggests an appropriate means of analysing individual documentary performances, indicating the necessity of attending to the way in which twice modified everyday self-presentational tools serve as signifiers in any given nonfiction text. Subsequent chapters turn from the issue of what nonfiction performance involves to a consideration of what it accomplishes. Drawing from scholarship devoted to each of the three levels of the documentary ‘social actor’s’ work, I posit three major functions for nonfiction performance. Chapter 2 demonstrates the way in which the individuals who appear in documentaries play a significant role in the construction of ‘characters’, which, in turn, exert an indelible influence on the meaning(s) of the texts in which they figure. Chapter 3 argues that nonfiction performance helps to bolster and/or to destabilize normative understandings of identity categories such as gender, sexuality, age, ethnicity, race, class and dis/ability. Finally, the concluding chapter discusses the way in which documentary performers help to invite affective reactions from spectators, and – in so doing – contribute significantly to nonfiction texts’ ability to effectuate social change. Detailed analyses of a wide range of documentaries provide support for these contentions.

Partout, des millions d'immigrants doivent apprendre à interagir avec une nouvelle culture (acculturation) et à s’y identifier (identification). Toutefois, il existe un débat important sur la relation entre l’acculturation et l’identification. Certains chercheurs les considèrent comme étant des concepts identiques; d’autres argumentent qu'un lien directionnel unit ces concepts (c.-à-d. l'identification mène à l'acculturation, ou l'acculturation mène à l'identification). Toutefois, aucune étude n'a pas investigué la nature et la direction de leur relation. Afin de clarifier ces questions, trois modèles théoriques testeront la relation entre l’acculturation et l’identification et deux variables centrales à l’immigration, soit être forcé à immigrer et l’incohérence des valeurs. Dans le premier modèle, les variables d'immigration prédirent simultanément l'acculturation et l'identification. Le second modèle avance que les variables d'immigration mènent à l'identification, qui mène à l'acculturation. Le troisième modèle précis plutôt que les variables d'immigration prédisent l'acculturation, qui prédit l'identification. Le premier modèle propose que l'acculturation et l'identification sont le même concept, tandis que les second et troisième stipulent qu'ils sont différents (ainsi que la direction de leur relation). Ces modèles seront comparés afin d’examiner l'existence et la direction du lien qui unit l'acculturation et l'identification. Lors de la première étude, 146 immigrants latino-américains ont répondu à un questionnaire. Les analyses des pistes causales appuient le troisième modèle stipulant que l'acculturation mène à l'identification et, donc, qu'ils sont des concepts distincts. Les résultats ont été confirmés à l’aide d’une deuxième étude où 15 immigrants latino-américains ont passé une entrevue semi-structurée. Les implications théoriques et pratiques seront discutées. / At present, millions of immigrants are learning to participate (acculturation) and identify to a new culture (identification). In acculturation research, there is considerable debate about the relationship between acculturation and identification. While some researchers consider them as identical concepts, other researchers argue that they are distinct. In addition, it is unclear which variable is at the origin of the other one. The aim of our research is to clarify the distinction and relationship of the variables. To this end, three theoretical models will be tested; they will differ on how acculturation and identification relate to two important immigration variables (coerciveness to immigrate and value incongruence). The first model states that the immigration variables simultaneously predict acculturation and identification. The second model affirms that the immigration variables predict identification, which then predicts acculturation. The third model is similar but instead acculturation predicts identification. Thus, if acculturation and identification have the same relationship to the two immigration variables (first model), they represent a single construct. However, if identification leads to acculturation (second model), they must be different concepts, identification prompting acculturation. Nonetheless, if acculturation leads to identification (third model), then these variables are not only different but acculturation influences identification. In the first study, 146 Latin American immigrants responded to a questionnaire. Path analyses support the third model, suggesting that acculturation leads to identification. The results were confirmed in a second study, where the semi-structured interviews of 15 Latin American immigrants were analyzed. The theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

This dissertation formulates a poetics of performance in nonfiction film and television. Building on a large body of converging research that calls for an acknowledgment of: the constructedness of documentary texts; the performative nature of identity; and the significance of screen performance, I illustrate the way in which documentary subjects must finally be seen as creative agents who (consciously or not) play a significant role in determining the meanings, functions, and effects of the films in which they appear. A first chapter lays the groundwork for this discussion, setting out a means of understanding and investigating the documentary performer’s work. It is argued that nonfiction performance is a three-tiered process, wherein everyday performative activity (tier #1) is shaped by and often tailored to the camera (tier #2) within specific nonfiction film frameworks (tier #3). In addition to providing a flexible and generally applicable model of what the nonfiction subject’s work entails, this conceptualization suggests an appropriate means of analysing individual documentary performances, indicating the necessity of attending to the way in which twice modified everyday self-presentational tools serve as signifiers in any given nonfiction text. Subsequent chapters turn from the issue of what nonfiction performance involves to a consideration of what it accomplishes. Drawing from scholarship devoted to each of the three levels of the documentary ‘social actor’s’ work, I posit three major functions for nonfiction performance. Chapter 2 demonstrates the way in which the individuals who appear in documentaries play a significant role in the construction of ‘characters’, which, in turn, exert an indelible influence on the meaning(s) of the texts in which they figure. Chapter 3 argues that nonfiction performance helps to bolster and/or to destabilize normative understandings of identity categories such as gender, sexuality, age, ethnicity, race, class and dis/ability. Finally, the concluding chapter discusses the way in which documentary performers help to invite affective reactions from spectators, and – in so doing – contribute significantly to nonfiction texts’ ability to effectuate social change. Detailed analyses of a wide range of documentaries provide support for these contentions.

We often think of stigmatized individuals as encountering only one stereotype set at a time. Yet, many individuals belong to multiple stigmatized groups, and stereotypes associated with these groups jointly influence how perceivers evaluate targets. Research suggests that perceivers integrate stereotypes about targets’ obvious identities during impression formation; however, no work has examined whether targets’ obvious (e.g., race) and ambiguous (e.g., sexual orientation) identities jointly influence impressions. Given that gay stereotypes are activated automatically, I expected the co-activation of contradictory Black (e.g., aggressive) and gay (e.g., warm) stereotypes to arouse conflict, weakening activation of negative stereotypes and improving evaluations of Black gay targets compared with Black straight targets. Participants in Study 1 rated faces of White straight men as more likable than White gay men, but rated Black gay men as more likable than Black straight men. Participants in Study 2 performed a race-categorization task designed to make race salient; nevertheless, sexual orientation still influenced impressions, producing a pattern similar to Study 1. Participants in Studies 3A (approach-avoidance task) and 3B (evaluative priming task) formed implicit impressions that converged with the explicit evaluations in Studies 1 and 2. In 3A, participants approaching Whites responded faster to straights than gays, whereas participants approaching Blacks responded faster to gays than straights. In 3B, participants recognized positive words somewhat (but not significantly) faster when primed with White straight (versus White gay) and Black gay (versus Black straight) faces. Studies 4A – C suggest that ambiguous categories modify the activation of obvious stereotypes, but do not make targets’ features look less prototypical of their obvious groups. In 4B, participants were slower to recognize Black-stereotypic words (piloted in 4A) when primed with Black gay (versus Black straight) faces. In 4C, participants rated Black straight and gay faces as similarly prototypical of Black phenotypes. Taken together, this work presents implications for stereotyping in the case of multiply-categorizable targets and for impression formation involving ambiguous categories.

Research on sex discrimination has found consistent support for the idea that women who violate gender roles by succeeding in male-dominated domains elicit hot forms of discrimination. In particular, evidence suggests that a perceivers' conservatism, which represents a preference against gender change toward greater equality, might motivate this kind of discrimination. Therefore, I hypothesized that perceiver conservatism would predict discrimination against female gender role violators. In two studies, I found evidence that conservatism predicts negative evaluations of targets (Study 1), as well as sabotage (Study 2). In addition, Study 2 revealed that the relationship between conservatism and sabotage was partially mediated by the perceivers' anxiety. However, if the discrimination that conservative perceivers direct at gender role violators is motivated by conservatives' preference against social change toward greater equality, then targets who support gender status hierarchies while they violate gender roles should experience less discrimination from conservative perceivers than those who challenge status hierarchies. Consistent with this reasoning, perceivers' conservatism was negatively related to perceived interpersonal hostility of female gender role violators who expressed support for gender hierarchy. In contrast, perceivers' conservatism was positively related to perceived interpersonal hostility of female gender role violators who expressed opposition to gender hierarchy (Study 1). However, targets' expressions of support for gender hierarchy did not have this effect on the relationship between perceivers' conservatism and perceptions of the target's ineffectuality (Study 1), respect for the target (Study 1), or sabotage of the target (Study 2). Moreover, while supporting status hierarchies reduced perceptions of interpersonal hostility from perceivers high in conservatism, it increased perceptions of hostility from those low in conservatism. Thus, supporting gender hierarchies may appear to help in some contexts, but is associated with significant costs, as well. The implications of these findings for theory and practice are discussed.

Although confronting prejudice can be effective in reducing bias, it is potentially costly to confronters. Research on confronting racism or sexism has shown confronters from the targeted group are viewed more negatively than confronters who are not. It is unknown whether confronting antigay bias produces similar reactions, particularly since group membership is concealable. In my research, participants read two male profiles followed by a scripted conversation which included an antigay comment. Profiles varied in their depiction of the confronting individual’s sexual orientation, and conversations either included a confrontation or not. I found that confronting antigay bias is double-edged. On the positive side, confrontation increased awareness that prejudice occurred, and this awareness mediated the relation between confrontation viewing and participants’ own intention to confront. On the negative, individuals may be deterred from confronting antigay prejudice because confronters were perceived as more gay (a stigmatized identity), regardless of actual orientation.

We often think of stigmatized individuals as encountering only one stereotype set at a time. Yet, many individuals belong to multiple stigmatized groups, and stereotypes associated with these groups jointly influence how perceivers evaluate targets. Research suggests that perceivers integrate stereotypes about targets’ obvious identities during impression formation; however, no work has examined whether targets’ obvious (e.g., race) and ambiguous (e.g., sexual orientation) identities jointly influence impressions. Given that gay stereotypes are activated automatically, I expected the co-activation of contradictory Black (e.g., aggressive) and gay (e.g., warm) stereotypes to arouse conflict, weakening activation of negative stereotypes and improving evaluations of Black gay targets compared with Black straight targets. Participants in Study 1 rated faces of White straight men as more likable than White gay men, but rated Black gay men as more likable than Black straight men. Participants in Study 2 performed a race-categorization task designed to make race salient; nevertheless, sexual orientation still influenced impressions, producing a pattern similar to Study 1. Participants in Studies 3A (approach-avoidance task) and 3B (evaluative priming task) formed implicit impressions that converged with the explicit evaluations in Studies 1 and 2. In 3A, participants approaching Whites responded faster to straights than gays, whereas participants approaching Blacks responded faster to gays than straights. In 3B, participants recognized positive words somewhat (but not significantly) faster when primed with White straight (versus White gay) and Black gay (versus Black straight) faces. Studies 4A – C suggest that ambiguous categories modify the activation of obvious stereotypes, but do not make targets’ features look less prototypical of their obvious groups. In 4B, participants were slower to recognize Black-stereotypic words (piloted in 4A) when primed with Black gay (versus Black straight) faces. In 4C, participants rated Black straight and gay faces as similarly prototypical of Black phenotypes. Taken together, this work presents implications for stereotyping in the case of multiply-categorizable targets and for impression formation involving ambiguous categories.

The goal of this dissertation was to examine how people pursue their personal goals in the context of an intimate relationship. Two studies were conducted; a daily diary study of dating partners’ joint activities and a longitudinal study of newly dating couples. In the daily diary study, people reported on their daily joint activities with their dating partners regarding whether their goals were met and how they were feeling during the given activity. The results showed that when people’s goals were met in an activity, their partners were able to accurately perceive that their goals were being met. However, when their goals were not met in the activity, their partners’ accuracy regarding their goals was only at chance levels. The partners’ overall levels of goal congruence did not predict the proportion of goal-congruent activities the partners participated in. However, the partners’ level of goal congruence predicted increases in life satisfaction, relationship commitment, and relationship satisfaction, as well as decreases in negative affect over time. In the longitudinal study, newly dating couples filled out measures of their goals, well-being, and relationship quality during their initial session. Three months later, the couples filled out measures of these same constructs again and answered questions about the goals that they reported pursuing during their initial session. Results showed that concurrently, the partners’ levels of goal congruence were associated with greater ability to make goal progress and higher relationship satisfaction, both of which, in turn, were associated with higher subjective well-being. Longitudinally, initial levels of goal congruence did not predict changes in goal progress and relationship quality over time. However, analysis of the individual goals indicated that people adjusted their goal pursuits based on the level of goal conflict between their own goals and their partners’ goals, such that people were more likely to stop pursuing or devalue goals that conflicted with their partners’ goals over time. Furthermore, the tendency to adjust goals over time was associated with increasing relationship commitment. The results of these studies show that conflict between relationship partners’ goals has important consequences for their relationship, goal progress, and personal well-being.

Research on sex discrimination has found consistent support for the idea that women who violate gender roles by succeeding in male-dominated domains elicit hot forms of discrimination. In particular, evidence suggests that a perceivers' conservatism, which represents a preference against gender change toward greater equality, might motivate this kind of discrimination. Therefore, I hypothesized that perceiver conservatism would predict discrimination against female gender role violators. In two studies, I found evidence that conservatism predicts negative evaluations of targets (Study 1), as well as sabotage (Study 2). In addition, Study 2 revealed that the relationship between conservatism and sabotage was partially mediated by the perceivers' anxiety. However, if the discrimination that conservative perceivers direct at gender role violators is motivated by conservatives' preference against social change toward greater equality, then targets who support gender status hierarchies while they violate gender roles should experience less discrimination from conservative perceivers than those who challenge status hierarchies. Consistent with this reasoning, perceivers' conservatism was negatively related to perceived interpersonal hostility of female gender role violators who expressed support for gender hierarchy. In contrast, perceivers' conservatism was positively related to perceived interpersonal hostility of female gender role violators who expressed opposition to gender hierarchy (Study 1). However, targets' expressions of support for gender hierarchy did not have this effect on the relationship between perceivers' conservatism and perceptions of the target's ineffectuality (Study 1), respect for the target (Study 1), or sabotage of the target (Study 2). Moreover, while supporting status hierarchies reduced perceptions of interpersonal hostility from perceivers high in conservatism, it increased perceptions of hostility from those low in conservatism. Thus, supporting gender hierarchies may appear to help in some contexts, but is associated with significant costs, as well. The implications of these findings for theory and practice are discussed.

Although confronting prejudice can be effective in reducing bias, it is potentially costly to confronters. Research on confronting racism or sexism has shown confronters from the targeted group are viewed more negatively than confronters who are not. It is unknown whether confronting antigay bias produces similar reactions, particularly since group membership is concealable. In my research, participants read two male profiles followed by a scripted conversation which included an antigay comment. Profiles varied in their depiction of the confronting individual’s sexual orientation, and conversations either included a confrontation or not. I found that confronting antigay bias is double-edged. On the positive side, confrontation increased awareness that prejudice occurred, and this awareness mediated the relation between confrontation viewing and participants’ own intention to confront. On the negative, individuals may be deterred from confronting antigay prejudice because confronters were perceived as more gay (a stigmatized identity), regardless of actual orientation.