George Homans

Psychological Behaviorism as Sociology

The Six Propositions

Distributive Justice (Equality vs. Equity)
Behavioral Psychology as
Sociology





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





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






1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The
The
The
The
The
The
Success Proposition
Stimulus Proposition
Value Proposition
Deprivation-Satiation Proposition
Aggression-Approval Proposition
Rationality Proposition
The Success Proposition




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




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


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




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



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


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



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




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


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



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)



An equitable relationship is achieved when
the ratio of the two persons’ worth is
equal to the ratio of their respective
rewards.
P1/P2 = R1/R2
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



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?