Appearance-based identification fails when behavior contradicts expected cues

Evidence

Nevertheless, there are occasions and situations in which the urbanite is called upon to code the other’s behavior as a means of identifying him. Sometimes, for example, the appearential and I or locational clues are incomplete or indistinct and take on certainty only with the addition of behavioral ones, as is often the case when one is attempting to identify the clerks in a retail store. Or, if the other is not acting in the manner which his appearance and location clearly predicted he would, then the primary clues may have to be discarded entirely and an identification made on the basis of behavior alone. Suppose, for example, that a young heterosexual male were to strike up a conversation with another very “straight” looking male in a bar frequented by heterosexual businessmen. The young man has every reason to believe, under these circumstances, that no homosexual overtures will be made. On the other hand, should such an overture be the second male’s intent, the young man would do well to read the subtle behavioral signs early so as to be able to direct his own actions. That is, his ability to code behavior would enable him to correct his initial erroneous identification. Depending on his own preferences, then, he could either terminate the encounter or let it continue, but in either case he would “know the ropes.” — Lyn H. Lofland, World of Strangers_ Order and Action in…, 608

Categorization

• XREF: Complements Lofland’s own earlier discussion of appearential and locational clues, and connects to Goffman’s frame analysis of how misread behavioral cues force re-framing. — connects to: Status appraisal works by triangulating a whole package of signals against hard-to-fake cues — W. David Marx, Status and Culture: How Our Desire for…, 236