Supplemental Materials
The Dramaturgical Perspective in Relation to Self and Culture
by D. Sullivan et al., 2014, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10.1037/a0037904
Supplemental Study 1
Method
Fifty-seven undergraduate students (27 female) at the University of Kansas participated
in exchange for course credit. Participants completed a packet consisting of several
questionnaires, only some of which were relevant for the present study. These measures were
scattered throughout the packet and are described next.
DP endorsement. We constructed the following three-item scale to assess dispositional
endorsement of the dramaturgical perspective (DP): “I often feel as if society is one big play that
everyone is performing in,” “I often feel as if society is one big game that everyone is playing,”
and “I believe that the ‘real me’ is like an actor who plays different roles in different situations”
(1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; MGrand = 3.67, SD = 1.44). The items showed good
reliability (α = .80), and we averaged them to form a composite measure of DP endorsement.
Individualism. Participants also completed a modified version of the dimensional
individualism scale (Singelis et al., 1995). Specifically, participants rated their level of
agreement (on 7-point scales) with four items assessing “horizontal” or expressive individualism:
“One should live one’s life independently of others,” “What happens to me is my own doing,” “I
often do ‘my own thing’,” and “I am a unique individual” (α = .70). Higher values indicated
greater dispositional individualism.
Existential quest. In order to assess tendencies toward a secular orientation, we
administered the existential quest scale (van Pachterbeke, Keller, & Saroglou, 2012). The scale
assesses several elements, such as need for cognition, more secular or exploratory views on
religious issues, and a high tendency to search for a sense of meaning in life. Sample items
include “Being able to doubt about one’s convictions and to reappraise them is a good quality”
and “I often reappraise my opinion on religious/spiritual beliefs” (1 = strongly disagree, 7 =
strongly agree). Van Pachterbeke et al. (2012) demonstrated the psychometric properties of the
scale and showed in multiple studies that it was negatively correlated with need for cognitive
closure and right-wing authoritarianism. The scale is intended to be a measure of the “quest”
orientation toward life (Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis, 1993) that can be completed by religious
or non-religious individuals. We consider it to be a measure of secularism in the sense proposed
by Charles Taylor (2007), meaning that agreement with these items indicates endorsement of the
attitudes and beliefs that make contemporary secularism possible (e.g., that people should have a
questioning or skeptical attitude toward life and religion). A high score on this scale does not
mean, however, that the respondent identifies as non-religious. The nine items on the existential
quest scale showed good reliability (α = .77) and were averaged to yield composite scores.
Belief in a controlling God. Participants responded to two separate measures assessing
religious tendencies. One measure assessed belief in a controlling God, a hallmark of
conservative or traditionalist religious beliefs. Participants responded to two items used in prior
research (Kay et al., 2010): “To what extent do you think that God or some type of nonhuman
entity is in control of the events in the universe?” and “To what extent do you think that the
events in the universe unfold according to God’s, or some type of nonhuman entity’s, plan?” (1 =
not at all, 9 = extremely). The two items correlated strongly (r = .96, p < .001), and we averaged
them.
Importance of religiosity. We also assessed general felt importance of religiosity with a
single item: “How important are your religious beliefs to you?” (1 = not very important, 9 = very
important). Given the general nature of this item, we did not consider it a measure of especially
conservative religiosity.
Political orientation. Finally, participants responded to two items assessing political
orientation: “When it comes to social issues, how would you describe your political beliefs?” and
“When it comes to economic issues, how would you describe your political beliefs?” (1 = very
conservative, 5 = moderate, 9 = very liberal). The two items were strongly correlated (r = .78, p
< .001), and we averaged them.
Results and Discussion
All correlations between the variables measured in this study are presented in Table 1.
Dispositional endorsement of the DP was positively correlated with existential quest (r = .32, p =
.01), political liberalism (r = .31, p = .02), and (marginally) with individualism (r = .25, p = .06).
Also, DP endorsement was negatively correlated with belief in a controlling God (r = .29, p =
.03). However, DP was not associated with overall importance of religiosity (r = .04, p = .77).
Supplemental Study 2
Method
Ninety-three (51 female) participants completed the study in exchange for course credit.
We randomly assigned participants to condition (DP vs. control) and then measured their
investment in family-related and extrinsic goals.
DP manipulation . We randomly assigned participants to either a DP or control writing
task condition. In the DP condition, participants were instructed, “For your essay, discuss how
everything we do in society—from participating in experiments to being a family member or the
citizen of a country—is like being in a ‘play,’ ‘game,’ or ‘matrix’ which is only real because
everyone agrees to participate in it… Discuss how you could be playing a very different role if
your life circumstances were different.” In the control condition, participants instead responded
to the prompt “Describe your daily experience commuting to the university from your place of
residence. If you live on campus, please describe your daily experience of walking to and from
your classes… Also describe the thoughts and feelings you typically experience as you move
through these familiar settings.”
An inspection of the essays written by students suggested that all participants in the DP
condition were satisfactorily capable of understanding the prompt and presenting their own
personal view of the DP. This finding was interesting in and of itself, because it suggests that,
regardless of their personal endorsement of this perspective, most college students in
contemporary society are at least familiar with the DP or similar ideas and are able to formulate
these ideas independently when asked. Typical responses to the DP prompt included statements
like “[A social situation] is like a game because it is never truly consistent and the roles we play
can be deceiving; they make us ask ourselves, ‘Who am I really?’” and “How people participate
in society is like a play. Everyone has their certain roles to move the show along or make the
play come to life.”
Family-related and extrinsic goals. Participants then completed a short questionnaire
ostensibly measuring their relative investment in different kinds of goals. Embedded in other
filler items were the eight items of interest, assessing investment in family-related and extrinsic
goals. These items were modeled after Kasser and Ryan’s (1993) aspirations index. Items
measuring investment in family-related goals were “Raising a family is a very important goal for
me,” “I intend to try hard to raise a family in the future,” “I intend to devote more time in the
coming years to achieving my goal of raising a family,” and “I plan on spending time in the
coming years to prepare myself for eventually raising a family” (1 = strongly disagree, 7 =
strongly agree; α = .92). To assess investment in extrinsic goals, we phrased parallel items in
terms of “becoming wealthy or famous” (α = .92).
Results and Discussion
To determine whether the DP manipulation differentially affected investment in familyrelated versus extrinsic goals, we first performed a 2 (between-subjects: DP vs. control)  2
(within: goal type) mixed-model analysis of variance. We obtained a significant interaction, F(1,
91) = 10.23, p < .01. Following up on this result, we performed separate t tests on each measure
of goal investment. Participants exposed to the DP showed greater investment in family-related
goals (M = 5.71, SD = 1.23) than did participants in the control condition (M = 5.06, SD = 1.64),
t(91) = 2.17, p = .03. The opposite pattern emerged for extrinsic goals: DP-primed participants
showed less investment (M = 3.48, SD = 1.67) than did control-primed participants (M = 4.21,
SD = 1.23), t(91) = 2.36, p = .02.
Table S1
Correlations Between All Variables (Supplemental Study 1)
Variable
Belief in a Importance
Dramaturgical
Existential
Political
Individualism
controlling
of
perspective
quest
orientation
God
religiosity
Dramaturgical
perspective
—
Individualism
.25*
—
Existential
quest
Belief in a
controlling
God
Importance of
religiosity
Political
orientation
.32**
.08
—
.29*
.07
.06
—
.04
.04
.08
.65**
—
.31**
.02
.17
.23*
.07
—
<<tabft>>Note. Higher political orientation scores indicate greater liberalism. N = 57
<mc>*p < .10. **p < .05.</.>