George Homans n Psychological Behaviorism as Sociology n

George Homans n Psychological Behaviorism as Sociology n The Six Propositions n Distributive Justice (Equality vs. Equity)

Behavioral Psychology as Sociology n n n How is this done? Simply by adding an interpretive element to this process. Elimination of the “black box”, reductionist and tautological phenomenon of “stimulus>>>response. ” Act is introduced. Stimulus>Act>Result This act is based on a rational calculation of Profit=Reward-Cost In short, this mental calculation is the basis of Exchange Theory, and allows for the tenants of Behavioral Psychology to be applied to more complex forms of human behavior.

Behavioral Psychology As Sociology Cont’d n n n Does this mean we are all selfish and hedonistic creatures? Practical Equilibrium. The tendency of behavior within small groups to remain consistent over time. Rewards and costs can take both personal and social forms. Festinger-Schachter studies. Integrity (personal) and cohesiveness (social). DQ #1: Given this broader definition of cost and reward, can Exchange Theory still account for the findings in Festinger’s cognitive dissonance experiment?

The Six Propositions n n n 1. The Success Proposition 2. The Stimulus Proposition 3. The Value Proposition 4. The Deprivation-Satiation Proposition 5. The Aggression-Approval Proposition 6. The Rationality Proposition

The Success Proposition n n The more often a particular action is rewarded, the more likely a person is to perform that action. The reward follows the action but is not necessarily caused by it (i. e. superstition). Three qualifiers: proximity, value of reward and patterns of reward. Proximity: the sooner the reward follows an action, the more likely the action is to be repeated.

The Stimulus Proposition n n The more similar the stimuli which provoked an action which resulted in positive value, the more likely the action will be performed. Proximity and value of reward are again important qualifiers Tie in to Cognitive Theory. Stimuli can be subject to both generalization and discrimination. Also, being able to detect the level of similarity between past and present stimuli. Tie in to S. I. For people, stimuli is largely verbal, resulting in far more complex exchanges and social behavior.

Imitation and Vicarious Reward n n Forms of social learning which may provide stimuli for future occasions. Further proof that social exchange is not tautological.

The Value Proposition: Reward and Punishment n n The more valuable the result of an action, the more likely a person is to repeat it. Values can be negative (punishment) and positive (reward). Four types of result total. Reward, punishment withheld (or minimized), punishment and reward withheld (or minimized). Values are infinitely varied (learned) and layered. A value is ultimately primordial, however, its link to this primordial state can vary because of man’s ability to use symbols.

The Value Proposition Cont’d n n n Generalized Values (Social Approval): Those values furthest removed from the primordial state, through symbolic links. Values, both personal and generalized, can be both altruistic and egotistic. DQ #2: Is this last assertion true? Might it be tenable to assert that all personal values are egotistic and all generalized values are altruistic?

Deprivation-Satiation Proposition n n The more in the recent past a person has received a particular reward, the less valuable any further unit of that reward becomes. Remember the “patterns of reward” qualifier to the first two propositions? Well, that qualifier might be considered a corollary to this proposition.

The Aggression-Approval Proposition n A. When a person’s action does not receive the reward he expected, or receives the punishment he did not expect, he becomes angry and will perform aggressive behavior, the results of such become more valuable to him. B. When a person’s actions receives a greater reward than expected, he will be pleased; perform approving behavior, which becomes more valuable to him. Innate and operant

The Rationality Proposition n n In choosing between alternative actions, a person will choose that one for which, as perceived by him at the time, the value V, of the result, multiplied by the probability, p, of getting the result, is the greater. A = p(v), where value is reward minus cost, or profit. Probability is often determined by previous rates of success. This proposition asserts nothing about what a man’s values are, however, if his are common values, they may be inferred.

In Short n n A stimulus (or set of stimuli) inspires a person to act out towards a result. His choice of action will be contingent on the type of result the stimuli has inspired in the past (Prop II), the action which has in the past best achieved that result (Prop I) and a rational calculation of the probability of success multiplied by the value of the result (Prop VI), wherein the value of said result is profit, or reward minus cost (Prop III). The more consistently or frequently a positive valued result is achieved, the less valuable it becomes to the actor (Prop IV). In addition, if the person receives an opposite valued result from what he was expecting, he will respond emotionally, while placing positive value in that response (Prop V).

In Short Cont’d n n n Values are personal (primordial) and generalized (social). The degree of difference is contingent upon symbolic links. As such, values can be both altruistic and egotistic. The ability to generalize and discriminate stimuli, as well as, being able to distinguish between the substance of past and present stimuli requires perception, memory (the ability to categorize) and the capacity to infer; i. e. cognition.

Distributive Justice (Equity vs. Equality) n n n An equitable relationship is achieved when the ratio of the two persons’ worth is equal to the ratio of their respective rewards. P 1/P 2 = R 1/R 2 The only time a relationship can be both equitable and equal is when the worth of the two people is the same.

Distributive Justice (Equity vs. Equality) Cont’d n n n DQ #3: Can we all agree some unequal equitable relationships are necessary? For instance, would it not be unjust to pay everyone in a corporation the same rate, regardless of job class or experience? If this is the case, at what point does equity, at the expense of equality, qualify as exploitation? Is it possible that “exploitation” is simply an ideologically naïve term which fails to distinguish between the concepts of equity and equality?