Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The formation of cliques in collectivities as a consequence of initial distributions of dimensions of… Foddy, William Henry 1972

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1972 A1 F63.pdf [ 6.26MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0106730.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0106730-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0106730-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0106730-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0106730-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0106730-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0106730-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0106730-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0106730.ris

Full Text

THE FORMATION OF CLIQUES IN COLLECTIVITIES AS A CONSEQUENCE OF INITIAL DISTRIBUTIONS OF DIMENSIONS OF WEALTH by WILLIAM HENRY RODDY M.A. University of Canterbury, New Zealand, 1968  A THESIS SUBMTTTED IN PARTIAL MJT^IIJVENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY i n the Department of Anthropology and Sociology  We accept t h i s thesis as conforming t o the r e q u i r e standard  THE uTWERSITY OF "BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1971  In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .  I t i s understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i  of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission.  Department The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada  ABSTRACT Past approaches t o t h e understanding o f t h e occurrence o f exchange I n t e r a c t i o n s and t h e g e n e r a t i o n o f sentiments o f s o c i a l a p p r o v a l and s o c i a l d i s a p p r o v a l w i t h i n c o l l e c t i v i t i e s a r e reviewed and a new t h e o r y i s f o r m u l a t e d . The new theory focuses on i n i t i a l , unequal d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f dimensions o f wealth w i t h i n the c o l l e c t i v i t i e s . On t h e b a s i s o f knowledge about t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e members' net w e a l t h l e v e l s , f o u r hypotheses r e g a r d i n g t h e p a t t e r n s o f exchange interactions i n the c o l l e c t i v i t i e s are derived f o r t e s t i n g . concern:  These  hypotheses  ( i ) t h e emergence, and o r d e r o f emergence, o f c l i q u e s w i t h i n t h e  c o l l e c t i v i t i e s , and ( i i )  t h e g e n e r a t i o n o f sentiments o f a p p r o v a l between  f e l l o w c l i q u e members and sentiments o f d i s a p p r o v a l between t h e members o f t h e d i f f e r e n t c l i q u e s i n each c o l l e c t i v i t y .  An e x p e r i m e n t a l paradigm i s t h e n  d e s c r i b e d and t h e r e s u l t s o f a c t u a l , l a b o r a t o r y experiments presented.  It is  concluded t h a t a l l f o u r hypotheses a r e supported by t h e d a t a . F i n a l l y , t h e theory i s p l a c e d w i t h i n t h e wider context o f t h e s o c i o l o g y of s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n i n g e n e r a l .  A b s t r a c t checked by ' P r o f e s s o r R.A.H. Robson Chairman a d v i s o r y coirmittee  ii  TABLE OP CONTENTS Page i  ABSTRACT  ii  TABLE OP CONTENTS  iv  LIST OF TABLES . .  vi  LIST OP FIGURES .  vii  LIST OP PLATES . .  viii  ACMOWLEDGMENT , , Chapter I. II. III. IV. V.  1 15 33  INTRODUCTION THEORY . . . RESEARCH DESIGN RESULTS AND EVALUATION OP RESULTS A WIDER CONTEXT  43  69 78  BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES I. II. III. TV. V. VI.  VII.  VIII.  IX.  P i l o t Work Laboratory Set-up Instructions Position Effects Questions Answered by S u b j e c t s A f t e r Seven O p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r Exchange Check f o r Assumption 4 Sample o f Comments E l i c i t e d by Post E x p e r i m e n t a l Question: Would You Say That You T r i e d To See Your O f f e r Prom The Other S u b j e c t ' s P o i n t Of View Whenever You Were D e c i d i n g What To O f f e r Another Subject? Sample o f Comments E l i c i t e d by Post Experimental Question: I f You Received Two Or More S i m i l a r O f f e r s At The Same Time, What F a c t o r s Would You Take I n t o Account I n D e c i d i n g Which One To Accept? Coded R e s u l t s o f Comments E l i c i t e d by Post Experimental Question: I f You Received Two Or More S i m i l a r O f f e r s At The Same T i n e , What F a c t o r s Would You Take I n t o Account I n D e c i d i n g Which One To Accept?  83 85 94 .  95 yo  97  99  102  Raw Data  iv  LIST OP TABLES Tables 1.  Page The i n i t i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f r e s o u r c e s across c o l l e c t i v i t i e s f o r each experimental c o n d i t i o n I n i t i a t i o n s d i r e c t e d toward highs d u r i n g t h e f i r s t o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r exchange under each experimental c o n d i t i o n  3.  I n t r a wealth l e v e l i n i t i a t i o n s during the f i r s t and seventh o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r exchange under each experimental condition  ^.  I n i t i a t i o n s t o highs under each experimental c o n d i t i o n : o f f e r s r e l a t i v e t o requests  5.  Changes o f net w e a l t h l e v e l i n i t i a t e d t o a f t e r acceptance and a f t e r r e j e c t i o n under t h e moderate and extreme differences conditions  6.  I n t e r and i n t r a net w e a l t h l e v e l i n i t i a t i o n s accepted under each experimental c o n d i t i o n  . . .  7-  Post e x p e r i m e n t a l approve and disapprove votes d i r e c t e d toward f e l l o w net w e a l t h l e v e l subjects  8.  D i s t r i b u t i o n o f a p p r o v a l and d i s a p p r o v a l votes across d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f acceptance  9-  V i s i b i l i t y o f p o s i t i o n s and i n i t i a t i o n s d u r i n g the f i r s t o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r exchange under the no d i f f e r e n c e s condition  V  Tables  Page  10.  Yes/no responses t o t h e post e x p e r i m e n t a l q u e s t i o n : Would you say t h a t you t r i e d t o see your o f f e r from t h e o t h e r s u b j e c t ' s p o i n t o f view whenever you were d e c i d i n g what t o o f f e r another s u b j e c t ?  11.  Coded r e s u l t s o f comments e l i c i t e d by post experimental q u e s t i o n : I f you r e c e i v e d two o r more s i m i l a r o f f e r s a t t h e same time, what f a c t o r s would you take i n t o account i n d e c i d i n g which one t o accept?  vi  LIST OF FIGURES Figure  Page  1.  A random, unbiased s o c i o m e t r i c p a t t e r n f o r eight actors  2.  An example o f a non-random, b i a s e d  sociometric  pattern f o r eight actors 3.  'High' and 'low' net w e a l t h l e v e l s  4.  D i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s o u r c e s f o r experiments  5.  An i n i t i a t i o n form  6.  P o s i t i o n o f booths v i s a v i s one another, and the c o l o u r o f t h e l a r g e s t p i l e o f buttons i n f r o n t o f each booth, i n every experiment run P o s i t i o n o f h i g h and low net w e a l t h members i n the moderate and extreme d i f f e r e n c e s experiments  7.  8.  An example o f the v i s i b i l i t y o f p o t e n t i a l exchange p a r t n e r s  9-  A booth  10.  Sample cards pinned t o lower b a r o f each s u b j e c t ' s booth  11.  Copy o f the t a b l e pinned t o the s i d e o f each s u b j e c t ' s booth  vii  LIST OF PLATES Plates  Page  1.  View o f experimental s i t u a t i o n  2.  View through a booth window  viii  ACMOWIEDGMEMT The theory and experimental d e s i g n d i s c u s s e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g pages emerged out o f a great d e a l o f r e a d i n g and c o u n t l e s s d i s c u s s i o n s .  I am  indebted t o Homans and L e i k , Emerson and Burgess f o r t h e many i d e a s expressed i n the m a t e r i a l they have had p u b l i s h e d .  I am a l s o i n d e b t e d t o t h e members  o f my a d v i s o r y committee: Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr.  R.A.H. Robson (Chairman), Martha F o s c h i , M. Biosnbaum, M. Humphreys ( P s y c h o l o g y ) , R. Robinson ( P h i l o s o p h y ) .  The members o f my a d v i s o r y committee have spent a g r e a t d e a l o f t h e i r time d i s c u s s i n g my work w i t h me. colleagues:  I n a d d i t i o n , I would l i k e t o thank my student  Margaret Foddy, P e t e r C l a r k , Donald Earner and W i l l i a m Reimer.  Both the members o f my committee and my student c o l l e a g u e s have  (perhaps  more than I would l i k e t o admit) helped me understand what i t i s t h a t I have been t r y i n g t o do. Finally,  I would l i k e t o express my g r a t i t u d e t o both t h e Canada  Council f o r the f i n a n c i a l  support I have r e c e i v e d and t h e many students who  were w i l l i n g t o take p a r t i n t h e experiments.  CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION T h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n i s concerned w i t h the r e l a t i o n s h i p between sequences o f exchange i n t e r a c t i o n s and the m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n within c o l l e c t i v i t i e s that exhibit specified c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . For the purposes o f t h i s c h a p t e r , i t w i l l s u f f i c e I f the term 'exchange i n t e r a c t i o n s ' i s taken t o r e f e r t o i n t e r a c t i o n s between p a i r s o f members o f a c o l l e c t i v i t y t h a t i n v o l v e the v o l u n t a r y swapping o f v a l u e d e f f e c t s .  The  words 'valued e f f e c t s ' are used d e l i b e r a t e l y because, as w i l l be noted below, exchange i n t e r a c t i o n s can i m p l i c a t e m a t e r i a l as w e l l as non goods. as  I t should be noted, a l s o , t h a t  material  'valued e f f e c t s ' w i l l be r e f e r r e d  to  'resources'. After Simmel\ gratitude  i n r e t u r n f o r g i f t s has been seen t o be b o t h  a determinant o f s o c i a l cohesion and a determinant o f s o c i a l i n e q u a l i t y i n collectivities.  The  i d e a of the emergence o f s o c i a l i n e q u a l i t y i n 2  c o l l e c t i v i t i e s as a consequence o f g i f t g i v i n g i s e l a b o r a t e d by Schwartz who  focuses on Gouldner's statement o f the norm o f r e c i p r o c i t y .  Gouldner  c l a i m s t h a t the norm of r e c i p r o c i t y demands t h a t people should h e l p and hurt those who  have helped them.  The  not  achievement and maintenance o f s o c i a l  s t a t u s through the g e n e r a l e x p l o i t a t i o n of the norm o f r e c i p r o c i t y has been 4 5 6 r e p o r t e d , f o r example, by Whyte , B l a u and Belshaw and the n o t i o n of deference as payment f o r s e r v i c e i n a c o l l e c t i v i t y has been t h e o r i z e d  about  7 by Harsanyi. The n o t i o n of the norm of r e c i p r o c i t y and the n o t i o n t h a t people c r e a t e , and manage, networks of o b l i g a t i o n have d e f i n e d one approach f o r  can  -2I n v e s t l g a t i n g the g e n e r a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between w e a l t h and s o c i a l i n e q u a l i t y in collectivities.  I t should be noted, however, t h a t t h i s approach  s p e c i f i c a l l y d e a l s w i t h s i t u a t i o n s i n which one person g i v e s something t o , o r does something f o r , another who I s not i n a p o s i t i o n t o r e c i p r o c a t e immediately i n any o t h e r way than by g i v i n g esteem o r a p p r o v a l i n r e t u r n f o r  g the g i f t o r s e r v i c e .  I f we assume t h a t people cannot make many d i s t i n c t i o n s  along the dimensions o f h i g h esteem-low esteem o r a p p r o v a l - d i s a p p r o v a l , we might a l s o assume t h a t t h i s approach w i l l have a l i m i t e d u t i l i t y i n t h a t the s i t u a t i o n s i t focuses on a r e u n l i k e l y t o g i v e r i s e t o prolonged sequences o f exchange i n t e r a c t i o n s between the same people.  I t does not seem c o n v i n c i n g  t o argue, f o r i n s t a n c e , t h a t person A can engage person B i n an extended sequence o f exchange i n t e r a c t i o n s by s u c c e s s i v e l y g i v i n g B warmer and warmer esteem o r more and more extreme i n d i c a t i o n s o f a p p r o v a l .  What i s i n q u e s t i o n  here i s whether s u c c e s s i v e expressions o f esteem o r a p p r o v a l can be r e c e i v e d as having a t l e a s t , s i m i l a r v a l u e s t o the p r e c e d i n g o n e s .  1 0  The problem i s  t h a t i t i s not obvious t h a t s u c c e s s i v e e x p r e s s i o n o f esteem o r a p p r o v a l c o u l d be seen as b e i n g separate.  I t may  a p p r o v a l are l i k e keys t o a c i t y : a g a i n and again.  be t h e case t h a t e x p r e s s i o n s o f esteem o r i t may not make much sense t o g i v e them  I t would seem t h a t e x p r e s s i o n s o f esteem o r a p p r o v a l cannot  be accumulated i n the same way t h a t amounts o f m a t e r i a l commodities can be accumulated.  F o r t h i s reason, i t might be argued t h a t s i t u a t i o n s i n which  one person g i v e s amounts o f some v a l u e d m a t e r i a l commodity i n r e t u r n f o r amounts o f some o t h e r valued commodity would be more l i k e l y t o be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h extended sequences o f exchange i n t e r a c t i o n s than s i t u a t i o n s i n which one person g i v e s something t o another who  i s not i n . a p o s i t i o n t o r e c i p r o c a t e  immediately i n any o t h e r way than by g i v i n g esteem o r a p p r o v a l i n r e t u r n . Because we are i n t e r e s t e d i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p between sequences o f exchange  -3-  i n t e r a c t i o n s and c e r t a i n aspects o f s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n i n c o l l e c t i v i t i e s , we w i l l focus on s i t u a t i o n s which can be seen as b e i n g most l i k e l y t o a l l o w extended sequences o f exchange i n t e r a c t i o n s .  T h i s means t h a t we w i l l  focus  on s i t u a t i o n s i n which one person g i v e s amounts o f some valued m a t e r i a l commodity i n r e t u r n f o r amounts o f some o t h e r v a l u e d m a t e r i a l commodity.  This  choice should be seen as a m a t t e r o f s t r a t e g y r a t h e r than as an o u t r i g h t d e n i a l t h a t extended sequences o f exchange i n t e r a c t i o n s can be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s i t u a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g non m a t e r i a l commodities. 11 12 Most exchange t h e o r i s t s , f o r example: Thibaut and K e l l e y , Kuhn , Longabough 13 , B l a u 14 and B o u l d i n g 1 5 focus on t h e mechanics o f s i n g l e exchange and f o r t h i s reason t h e i r works w i l l not be gone i n t o here.  I t c o u l d be noted,  however, t h a t Thibaut and K e l l e y see t h e relevance o f i d e a s r e l a t e d t o a d a p t a t i o n l e v e l t h e o r y " ^ t o exchange theory ( i . e . , they use t h e n o t i o n t h a t people w i t h a l o t o f a resource d e a l i n l a r g e amounts o f i t w h i l e people w i t h a l i t t l e d e a l i n s m a l l amounts).  And t h e o r i s t s l i k e B o u l d i n g and B l a u t r y t o  u t i l i z e t h e n o t i o n o f d i m i n i s h i n g m a r g i n a l u t i l i t y ( i . e . , they contend t h a t the more a person has o f a resource t h e l e s s he w i l l want more o f i t ) . the n o t i o n o f a d a p t a t i o n l e v e l s and t h e n o t i o n o f d i m i n i s h i n g m a r g i n a l  Both utility  have been i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e theory presented i n t h e next chapter. I t i s g e n e r a l l y assumed t h a t an exchange i n t e r a c t i o n w i l l o n l y occur i f both p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d have somehow p e r c e i v e d t h a t they w i l l be b e t t e r o f f a f t e r 17 i t has taken p l a c e .  Some work has been done on t h e problem o f how t h e  p a r t i e s manage t o agree on how much o f one resource w i l l be exchanged f o r how l8 much o f the other  but, g i v e n t h a t we a r e i n t e r e s t e d I n t h e consequences o f  s e r i e s o f exchanges, we w i l l not d w e l l on t h i s , aspect o f exchange t h e o r y . While i t i s c l e a r t h a t r e c i p r o c a l g i v i n g o r , more f o r m a l l y , exchange i n t e r a c t i o n s can be seen t o be a determinant o f s o c i a l c o h e s i o n , i t i s not  -4c l e a r t h a t exchange i n t e r a c t i o n s t h a t do not d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e a p p r o v a l o r esteem as one o f t h e resources should be seen t o be r e l a t e d t o t h e g e n e r a t i o n ,of s o c i a l s t a t u s .  I f i t i s assumed t h a t people e n t e r i n t o exchange  i n t e r a c t i o n s because they f i n d them m u t u a l l y rewarding, however, i t might a l s o be assumed t h a t people w i l l l i k e o r approve o f those w i t h whom they can e n t e r i n t o exchange i n t e r a c t i o n s ( o r more p a r t i c u l a r l y s e r i e s o f exchange interactions).  T h i s , i n f a c t , I s t h e theme t h a t u n d e r l i e s t h e t h e o r y presented  i n t h e next chapter. I f exchange i n t e r a c t i o n s a r e m u t u a l l y rewarding t o t h e p a r t i e s I n v o l v e d , s e r i e s o f exchange i n t e r a c t i o n s can be viewed as sequences o f r e c i p r o c a l , p o s i t i v e reinforcements.  T h i s view opens up t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f l i n k i n g  exchange theory t o l e a r n i n g t h e o r y .  The f i r s t attempt t o do t h i s was made by  19 Romans.  Romans, u n f o r t u n a t e l y , r a n i n t o severe c r i t i c i s m f o r h i s e f f o r t s .  He'was c r i t i c i z e d f o r i g n o r i n g t h e q u e s t i o n o f how amounts o f d i f f e r e n t 20 resources can be equated t o one another. a s e t o f correspondence  He was accused o f f a i l i n g t o g i v e  r u l e s f o r c e n t r a l concepts  and o f d e f i n i n g these c e n t r a l terms t a u t o l o g i c a l l y .  21 (e.g., c o s t , p r o f i t , e t c . ) 22 He was accused o f u s i n g  operant c o n d i t i o n i n g p r i n c i p l e s b a d l y ; f o r i n s t a n c e , i t was noted t h a t he had ignored t h e important f i n d i n g t h a t i n t e r m i t t e n t reinforcement i s more e f f e c t i v e than continuous reinforcement i n d e l a y i n g t h e e x t i n c t i o n o f a response.  As a consequence o f these shortcomings  and t h e f a c t t h a t he  f a i l e d t o make a l l t h e p r o p o s i t i o n s he employed e x p l i c i t , Homans' c l a i m t h a t he had formulated an axiomatic theory o f s o c i a l exchange has been w i d e l y  24 challenged. I n s p i t e o f t h e c r i t i c i s m s , i t would be u n f a i r t o l o s e s i g h t o f t h e impetus Homans has g i v e n t o t h e t h e o r i z i n g about s t a t u s systems. H i s argument t h a t a man's c o n t r o l over scarce resources enables him t o reward  -5others and thus achieve h i g h s o c i a l s t a t u s o r a u t h o r i t y  i s s i m i l a r t o the  view t h a t i s advanced i n the next chapter. A more s o p h i s t i c a t e d attempt t o l i n k l e a r n i n g t h e o r y t o exchange theory t h a n Homans' has more r e c e n t l y been made by L e i k , Emerson and Burgess.' Since t h e t h e o r y advanced i n the next c h a p t e r was d i r e c t l y s t i m u l a t e d by L e i k et a l ' s work, a p o r t i o n o f t h e i r paper i s reproduced here t o : the g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r o f t h e i r t h e o r y , and ( i i )  (i)  indicate  g i v e subsequent comments  substance. " . . . S o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n between two a c t o r s ( c a l l them aj_ and a j t ) can be d e s c r i b e d i n terms o f r e c i p r o c a l ' e x p e c t a t i o n s ' , l e a n i n g h e a v i l y upon c o g n i t i v e psychology. By c o n t r a s t , t h e same s o c i a l process can be d e s c r i b e d i n terms o f r e c i p r o c a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t s , l e a n i n g almost e x c l u s i v e l y upon operant psychology. The l a t t e r approach i s t h e s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r t h i s s o c i a l exchange t h e o r y . L e t us assume t h a t a s o c i a l r e l a t i o n i n v o l v e s some s p e c i f i a b l e b e h a v i o r j which a-j_ r e p e a t e d l y performs i n t h e r e l a t i o n , and b e h a v i o r j ' which aj_t performs. Assume f u r t h e r t h a t j and j ' are both operant b e h a v i o r . I f , i n a d d i t i o n , j i s a r e i n f o r c i n g s t i m u l u s ( o r mediates r e i n f o r c e m e n t ) f o r aj_t, t h e n we say t h a t aj_'s a b i l i t y t o perform j i s a resource o f a^ I n h i s r e l a t i o n w i t h a ^ i . The magnitude o f t h i s resource i s a f u n c t i o n o f t h e v a l u e o f j t o a-j_ i , and t h e a b i l i t y o f a^ t o p r o v i d e i t . T h i s s o c i a l r e l a t i o n can be symbolized as t h e exchange r e l a t i o n aj_ 4 a^_, .,, where j and j ' are b e h a v i o r a l resources o r a± a n d a ± i r e s p e c t i v e l y . The two persons are s a i d t o 'exchange' j and j ' i n a process o f r e c i p r o c a l reinforcement which s u s t a i n s the r e l a t i o n through time. (For s i m p l i c i t y , the r e l a t i o n may be symbolized a^ a^_i, w i t h t h e r e s o u r c e s understood). As an i n t e r a c t i v e process through t i m e , the exchange r e l a t i o n i s conceived f u r t h e r as a s e t o f t e m p o r a l l y i n t e r s p e r s e d events c a l l e d o p p o r t u n i t i e s , i n i t i a t i o n s and t r a n s a c t i o n s . I f aj_r I s ' a c c e s s i b l e ' t o aj. at a g i v e n t i m e , aj_ i s s a i d t o have an o p p o r t u n i t y . Given an o p p o r t u n i t y , i f aj_ performs ( o r s y m b o l i c a l l y 'promises t o perform') j , t h e n we say that a^ has i n i t i a t e d a p o s s i b l e episode o f exchange. E i t h e r p a r t y might i n i t i a t e , and we i n t r o d u c e the term because who i n i t i a t e s o f t e n }  -6makes a d i f f e r e n c e . F i n a l l y , g i v e n an i n i t i a t i o n by aj_, I f aj_t accepts by performing j ' we say t h a t a t r a n s a c t i o n has been consummated o r agreed upon. Since b o t h j and j ' are assumed t o be operants and r e i n f o r c i n g s t i m u l i , the exchange r e l a t i o n as an i n t e r a c t i v e r e l a t i o n across time ( a h i s t o r y o f p r i o r t r a n s a c t i o n s ) i s governed by t h r e e p r o p o s i t i o n s : 1. H o l d i n g the p r o b a b i l i t y o f acceptance constant and g r e a t e r t h a n z e r o , the p r o b a b i l i t y o f i n i t i a t i o n i s an i n c r e a s i n g f u n c t i o n o f the resource magnitude o f the a c t o r t o whom i n i t i a t i o n i s made. 2. H o l d i n g the resource magnitude o f t h e a c t o r t o whom i n i t i a t i o n i s made constant and g r e a t e r than z e r o , the p r o b a b i l i t y o f i n i t i a t i o n i s an i n c r e a s i n g f u n c t i o n o f the p r o b a b i l i t y o f acceptance d u r i n g p r e v i o u s t r a n s a c t i o n s . 3. The p r o b a b i l i t y o f acceptance i s an i n c r e a s i n g f u n c t i o n o f the resource magnitude o f the i n i t i a t o r d u r i n g p r e v i o u s t r a n s a c t i o n s . These p r o p o s i t i o n s assume t h a t t r a n s a c t i o n s i n any r e l a t i o n compete f o r a v a i l a b l e time w i t h possible transactions i n alternative relations...." L e i k e t a l go on t o use t h e i r t h r e e p r o p o s i t i o n s t o deduce t h a t when t h e r e i s an unequal and f i x e d d i s t r i b u t i o n o f resources across a s e t o f a c t o r s , the network o f exchange r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i l l tend t o s t r a t i f y i n t o two or more c l o s e d networks o r c l a s s e s w i t h the h i g h e r c l a s s e s forming b e f o r e t h e lower c l a s s e s .  That i s , they make the resource d i s t r i b u t i o n t h e i r  independent v a r i a b l e and the emergence o f a s t r a t i f i e d s t r u c t u r e t h e i r dependent v a r i a b l e . Having formulated t h e i r t h e o r y , L e i k e t a l designed an experiment t o test i t .  They gave each s u b j e c t a set amount o f p l a y money t o begin w i t h and  had groups o f s i x s i t around a t a b l e .  On each t r i a l , two o f the s u b j e c t s were  g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y t o i n v i t e one o r two (whichever they wished) o f the other f o u r s u b j e c t s t o a t t e n d an exchange booth w i t h them. exchange booths.)  (There were two  I f a subject was e i t h e r a host o r i n v i t e d t o a t t e n d a booth  -7and wanted t o accept the i n v i t a t i o n he had t o pay $50 t o the booth which would pay him an amount t h a t depended upon which o f the o t h e r attended the booth w i t h him.  T h i s amount was  s u b j e c t s were weighted as worth $60  set by the f a c t t h a t two o f the  each, two were weighted as worth $40  and two were weighted as worth $20 each. weightings  subjects  A s u b j e c t was p a i d the t o t a l  o f t h e s u b j e c t s t h a t attended a booth w i t h him.  informed about t h i s w e i g h t i n g system.  each  No s u b j e c t  was  Rather, s u b j e c t s l e a r n t t h a t they were  p a i d more i f they attended the booth w i t h some s u b j e c t s than w i t h o t h e r s . Because s u b j e c t s were o n l y allowed t o a t t e n d one booth on any g i v e n t r i a l , a subject o f t e n had t o choose between two i n v i t a t i o n s .  At the end o f the  experiment, the p l a y money each s u b j e c t had managed t o accumulate was  exchanged  f o r r e a l money. N o t i c e t h a t L e i k et a l do not c l e a r l y s t a t e whether 'resource magnitude' r e f e r s t o the magnitude o f the t o t a l amount of a resource t h a t an a c t o r has o r t o the s i z e of the amount an a c t o r b r i n g s t o a r e l a t i o n s h i p .  In defining  'resource magnitude' as the a b i l i t y t o p r o v i d e a r e i n f o r c i n g s t i m u l u s , L e i k et a l seem t o be f o c u s i n g on the t o t a l amount o f a resource t h a t an a c t o r has  and  y e t , the way p r o p o s i t i o n s 1 and 3 are worded, i t would seem t h a t the s i z e o f the amount t h a t an a c t o r b r i n g s t o a r e l a t i o n s h i p i s the r e q u i r e d meaning. The unfortunate t h i n g i s t h a t the meaning r e q u i r e d may i n question.  depend upon the  I f the resource i s the a b i l i t y t o perform a behavior  s e r v i c e ) , the q u a l i t y of a s i n g l e performance might be the consideration.  I f the resource i s o f a m a t e r i a l nature  t o t a l amount t h a t the a c t o r has might be the important  resource  (i.e., a  important  (e.g., money), the factor.  Perhaps an even more s e r i o u s shortcoming ..of the L e i k et a l f o r m u l a t i o n i s the f a c t t h a t they do not g i v e any e x p l a n a t i o n f o r e i t h e r the f i r s t o r the t h i r d propositions.  I t i s not c l e a r why they would use these p r o p o s i t i o n s .  -8Exchange i n t e r a c t i o n s occur between p a i r s of a c t o r s and the occurrence o f an initiation  i s as dependent upon the amount t h a t a would-be i n i t i a t o r  holds  of  i t as i t i s dependent upon the amount t h a t a would-be r e c e i v e r of the initiation  has.  Because b o t h a c t o r s need t o have an excess o f a  resource  t h a t the o t h e r wants before exchanges can be p e r c e i v e d as d e s i r a b l e , p r o p o s i t i o n s t h a t focus on the amount o f a resource t h a t one p a r t y h o l d s without r e f e r e n c e t o the amount o f another r e s o u r c e t h a t t h e o t h e r p a r t y do not make a great d e a l o f sense.  holds  The attempt t o p r o v i d e a set o f more  d e f e n s i b l e p r o p o s i t i o n s I s one o f the main t h r u s t s o f t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . L e i k et a l ' s f i r s t p r o p o s i t i o n would seem t o ensure t h a t ego w i l l make a p e r c e i v e d g a i n p r o v i d i n g a l t e r accepts h i s i n i t i a t i o n , and t h e i r t h i r d p r o p o s i t i o n would seem t o ensure t h a t a l t e r w i l l make a p e r c e i v e d g a i n each time he accepts an i n i t i a t i o n  from ego.  U n f o r t u n a t e l y , s i n c e they t r e a t ego  and a l t e r s e p a r a t e l y , t h e i r p r o p o s i t i o n s do not g i v e us any b a s i s f o r b e l i e v i n g t h a t exchange i n t e r a c t i o n s w i l l ever take p l a c e .  Regardless o f the  p e r c e i v e d g a i n s t h a t ego would make, a l t e r w i l l r e j e c t ego's i n i t i a t i o n s u n l e s s he stands t o make p e r c e i v e d gains too.  Hence i t might be concluded  t h a t , i f ego i s t o s u c c e s s f u l l y i n t e r a c t w i t h a l t e r , he must be a b l e t o a d j u s t his  b e h a v i o r , e i t h e r by t r i a l and e r r o r or I n s i g h t , t o a l t e r ' s requirements at  the same time as he pursues h i s own  interests.  T h i s means, presumably, t h a t  we need a s e t o f p r o p o s i t i o n s t h a t d e a l w i t h ego's and a l t e r ' s resource l e v e l s a t the same time r a t h e r than one a t a time. Although L e i k et a l hypothesize t h a t the network o f exchange r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i l l tend t o s t r a t i f y I n t o two or more c l o s e d networks, they do not the a c t u a l mechanics o f t h i s process.  discuss  I f they.had, they would have found t h a t ,  i n the absence of d e s c r i p t i v e d e t a i l s about the "unequal and f i x e d d i s t r i b u t i o n of resources" t h a t they assume, the p r e d i c t i o n s they want t o make do not  flow  -9-  from t h e i r theory.  Indeed, they c o u l d have j u s t as e a s i l y p r e d i c t e d a  continuous h i e r a r c h i c a l order i n s t e a d o f the h i e r a r c h y o f d i s c r e t e c l a s s e s t h a t they chose t o p r e d i c t . While a r g u i n g t h a t the experimental s i t u a t i o n they used was  relevant  t o t h e i r t h e o r e t i c a l f o r m u l a t i o n , L e i k et a l advance the n o t i o n o f " i n t r a category exchanges" by which they r e f e r t o s i t u a t i o n s I n which i n t e r a c t a n t s supposedly exchange resources t h a t are " q u a l i t a t i v e l y s i m i l a r " .  Actually,  they o p e r a t i o n a l i z e " q u a l i t a t i v e l y s i m i l a r " as "the same".  That i s , s u b j e c t s  had t o d e p o s i t money at a booth i n order t o r e c e i v e money.  The n o t i o n o f  i n t r a - c a t e g o r y exchange i s not v e r y c o n v i n c i n g .  I t h a r d l y seems reasonable  t o suppose t h a t people w i l l g e n e r a l l y exchange amounts o f one resource f o r amounts o f the same resource. F u r t h e r problems a r i s e f o r L e i k et a l because:  ( i ) up t o t h r e e  s u b j e c t s were a l l o w e d t o a t t e n d the same booth at the same t i m e , and o f the s u b j e c t s were t o l d t h a t the experimenter would i n j e c t new  (ii)  none  amounts o f  the resource i n t o the s i t u a t i o n dependent upon which s u b j e c t s attended  the  booths d u r i n g each o p p o r t u n i t y f o r exchange. Presumably, L e i k et a l f e l t t h a t s u b j e c t s c o u l d e x t r a c t i n f o r m a t i o n about other s u b j e c t s from t r i a d i c i n t e r a c t i o n s . Yet I t cannot be taken f o r granted t h a t the s u b j e c t s have the c a p a c i t y t o do t h i s .  Host s u b j e c t s  may  have l e a r n t t o d i r e c t s i n g l e i n i t i a t i o n s t o p a i r s o f o t h e r s u b j e c t s r a t h e r than have l e a r n t t o d i r e c t two i n i t i a t i o n s t o two d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s .  Moreover,  i n s p i t e o f L e i k et a l ' s c l a i m t h a t they l e a n almost e x c l u s i v e l y upon operant psychology,  t h e i r r e s e a r c h d e s i g n does not a l l o w s u b j e c t s t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e  one  another, a t the b e g i n n i n g o f an experiment, i n t e ^ i s o f some a t t r i b u t e o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t h a t i s r e l a t e d t o t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e resource l e v e l s .  Each  s u b j e c t ' s resource l e v e l can o n l y be known a f t e r the d i f f e r e n t i a l outcomes f o r  -10the d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s have become apparent ( i . e . , a f t e r s e v e r a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r exchange).  I n other words, i t i s not c l e a r t h a t L e i k et a l can c l a i m  t h a t a^ c o u l d a s s o c i a t e a^, w i t h a s t i m u l u s t h a t c o u l d be d i f f e r e n t i a l l y 27 reinforced.  At b e s t , such a c l a i m might h o l d a f t e r s e v e r a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s  f o r exchange when t h e s u b j e c t s might be a b l e t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e one another i n terms o f t h e magnitudes o f t h e p i l e s o f p l a y money I n f r o n t o f them.  At  worst, t h e c l a i m might never h o l d because other l e a r n i n g f a c t o r s (e.g., reinforcement  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h past outcomes, e t c . ) might negate t h e s a l i e n c e  of t h e supposed d i f f e r e n t i a l s t i m u l u s .  I n any case, t h e problem can be  summed up by s a y i n g t h a t t h e s i t u a t i o n s c r e a t e d by t h e r e s e a r c h d e s i g n a r e t o o complex f o r operant psychology t o p r o v i d e an adequate i n f e r e n t i a l s t r u c t u r e . The c r i t i c i s m s s e t out i n t h e preceding paragraphs tempt one t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e r e s e a r c h d e s i g n employed by L e i k e t a l n e i t h e r focuses on exchange behavior n o r t e s t s t h e hypotheses t h a t they were i n t e r e s t e d i n . Instead o f engaging I n exchange behavior, t h e s u b j e c t s c o u l d o n l y l e a r n t o seek l u c k y s i t u a t i o n s . These c r i t i c i s m s arose because:  ( i ) t h e r e was o n l y  one type o f resource i n t h e s i t u a t i o n , ( i i ) t h e experimenters kept i n j e c t i n g new amounts o f t h e resource i n t o t h e s i t u a t i o n i n s p i t e o f t h e f a c t t h a t t h e i r theory c a l l s f o r a " f i x e d s e t o f resources across a f i x e d s e t o f a c t o r s " , and (iii)  s u b j e c t s c o u l d not v i s u a l l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e one another i n a way t h a t  would be meaningful i n terms o f operant theory. I n t h e next chapter, an attempt i s made t o advance a t h e o r e t i c a l f o r m u l a t i o n t h a t , though s i m i l a r t o L e i k e t a l ' s , meets t h e c r i t i c i s m s t h a t have j u s t been s e t out and, i n chapter t h r e e , an experimental paradigm i s described that w i l l :  ( i ) a l l o w more v a l i d t e s t s o f t h e theory advanced t h a n  the L e i k et a l ' s paradigm allowed f o r t h e i r theory, and ( i i ) f o r a s e r i e s o f experimental  serve as a b a s i s  i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . The r e s u l t s o f a c t u a l experiments  -11-  are presented and e v a l u a t e d i n chapter f o u r .  A f i n a l chapter t r i e s t o r e l a t e  these i n t e r e s t s t o o t h e r i n t e r e s t s i n the s o c i o l o g y o f s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n .  FOOTNOTES See: ( i ) G. Simmel, The S o c i o l o g y o f Georg Simmel. T r a n s l a t e d , e d i t e d and Introduced by K.H. W o l f f . (New York: Free P r e s s , 1950). On page 387, Simmel d i s c u s s e s g r a t i t u d e f o r g i f t s o r s e r v i c e as a non l e g a l form o f honour, ( i i ) M. Maus, The G i f t : Forms and F u n c t i o n s o f Exchange i n A r c h a i c S o c i e t i e s . T r a n s l a t e d by I . Cunnison and i n t r o d u c e d by E.E. E v a n s - P r i t c h a r d . (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1967). ( i i i ) C. L e v i - S t r a u s s , Les S t r u c t u r e s Elementaires de l a Parente. Presses U n i v e r s i t a i r e s de France, 1949- Chapter V- Le P r i n c i p e de Re'ciprocite' abridged and t r a n s l a t e d by Rose L. Coser and Grace F r a z e r and r e p r i n t e d i n S o c i o l o g i c a l Theory, e d i t e d by L.A. Coser and B. Rosenberg. (New York: M a c M i l l a n , 1957), pp. 84-94.  0 B. Schwartz, The s o c i a l psychology S o c i o l o g y 73 ( 1 9 6 7 ) n l , pp.  o f the g i f t .  American J o u r n a l o f  1-11.  A.W. Gouldner, The norm o f r e c i p r o c i t y : A p r e l i m i n a r y statement. American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 25 (1960)n2, pp. 161-178.  4 W.F. Whyte, S t r e e t Corner S o c i e t y . (Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago P r e s s , 1943). On page 74, Whyte advances t h e i d e a o f t h e gang l e a d e r e s t a b l i s h i n g a u t h o r i t y by m a i n t a i n i n g a net-work o f o b l i g a t i o n s . ''P.M. B l a u , B l a u , Bureacracy i n Modern S o c i e t y . (New York: Random House, 1956), p. 72: "...The mere knowledge t h a t t h e r u l e e x i s t s and p o s s i b l y t h a t i t i s enforced elsewhere i n s t i l s a sense o f o b l i g a t i o n t o l i b e r a l s u p e r i o r s and induces subordinates more r e a d i l y t o comply w i t h t h e i r r e q u e s t s . . . . " ^C.S. Belshaw, T r a d i t i o n a l Exchange and Modem Markets. (Englewood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1965), p. 48: "...The man who can c a l l f o r t h r e s o u r c e s , who c o n t r o l s w e a l t h , does not h o l d t h e r e s o u r c e s i n h i s own name n e c e s s a r i l y . He has g i v e n t h e cow t o another i n a t i l i a r e l a t i o n s h i p , he has g i v e n h i s vaygu's t o a t r a d i n g p a r t n e r , he has passed marriage goods t o h i s son's a ff i n e s . But having d i s p e r s e d m a t e r i a l w e a l t h i n t h i s way, he has through c a p i t a l investment gained c o n t i n u i n g c o n t r o l over f u t u r e s e r v i c e s . H i s command over wealth has been secured and has been expanded. And he i s known t o have such power. T h i s i s t h e t r u e w e a l t h i n a p r e s t a t i o n system, and i t i s the mainspring o f e n t r e p r e n u r i a l a c t i v i t y . . . . " 7  J.C. H a r s a n y i , A b a r g a i n i n g model f o r s o c i a l s t a t u s i n i n f o r m a l groups and formal o r g a n i z a t i o n s . B e h a v i o r a l Science V I I (1966)n5, pp. 357369.  -13-  P.M. B l a u , The Dynamics o f Bureacracy: A study I n I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s I n two governmental agencies. (Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago P r e s s , 1955), p. 108: "...A c o n s u l t a t i o n can be c o n s i d e r e d an exchange o f v a l u e s ; b o t h p a r t i c i p a n t s pay a p r i c e . The q u e s t i o n i n g agent i s enabled t o perform b e t t e r than he c o u l d otherwise have done w i t h o u t e x p r e s s i n g h i s d i f f i c u l t i e s t o t h e s u p e r v i s o r . By a s k i n g f o r h i s a d v i c e , he e x p l i c i t l y pays r e s p e c t t o the s u p e r i o r p r o f i c i e n c y o f h i s c o l l e a g u e . T h i s acknowledgment o f i n f e r i o r i t y i s the c o s t o f r e c e i v i n g a s s i s t a n c e . . . . " U  -^See: G.C. Homans, S o c i a l Behavior: I t s elementary forms. (New York: H a r c o u r t , Brace & World, I n c . , 1961). On pages 64-68, Homans d i s c u s s e s t h i s possibility. See: Homans, I b i d . , p. 65. Homans seems t o be aware o f t h i s problem because he notes the p o s s i b i l i t y o f A changing t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e exchanges by a s k i n g B f o r a d v i c e about p e r s o n a l matters i n s t e a d o f o f f i c e a f f a i r s i n r e t u r n f o r esteem f o r a new aspect o f B. ~^J.W. Thibaut and H.H. K e l l e y , The S o c i a l Psychology o f Groups. (New York: W i l e y , 19 59)•  12 A. Kuhn, The Study o f S o c i e t y : Irwin-Dorsey, 1963).  A u n i f i e d approach.  (Homewood,  111.:  13 R. Longabough, A category system f o r coding i n t e r p e r s o n a l b e h a v i o r as s o c i a l exchange. Sociometry 26_ (1963), pp. 319-34514 P.M. B l a u , Exchange and Power i n Everyday L i f e .  (John W i l e y & Sons,  1964). 15 K.E. B o u l d i n g , Economic A n a l y s i s : Harper & Row, 1966), 4th e d i t i o n .  V o l . I , Microeconomics.  (New York:  "^See: ( i ) H. Helson, A d a p t a t i o n - l e v e l Theory: An e x p e r i m e n t a l systematic approach t o b e h a v i o r ! (New York: Harper & Row, 1964). ( i i ) W. Bevan and R.E. Adamson, I n t e r n a l r e f e r e n t s and the concept o f reinforcement. I n I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y Behavior Sciences Research Conference, U n i v e r s i t y o f New Mexico, D e c i s i o n s , Values and Groups, V o l . I (New York: Pergamon, 1963). See:  K.E. B o u l d i n g , op. c i t . , pp. 22-23.  -14-  l8  See: ( i ) K.E. B o u l d i n g , op. c i t . , c h a p t e r 27. ( i i ) S. S i e g e l and L.E. P o u r a k e r , B a r g a i n i n g and Group D e c i s i o n Making. (New York: M c G r a w - H i l l , I960), ( i i i ) H.H. K e l l e y , I n t e r a c t i o n p r o c e s s and t h e attainment o f maximum j o i n t p r o f i t . Chapter 16 i n : D e c i s i o n s and Choice: C o n t r i b u t i o n s o f Sidney S i e g e l . E d i t e d by S. Messick and A.H. B r a y f i e l d . (New York: M c G r a w - H i l l ,  1965). / x  19  See: ( i ) G.C. Homans, S o c i a l b e h a v i o r as exchange. American J o u r n a l o f S o c i o l o g y 63 (1957-1958)n6, pp. 597-606. ( i i ) G.C. Homans, S o c i a l Behavior: I t s elementary forms. (New York: H a r c o u r t , Brace & Co., I96TT.  20 J.A. D a v i s , Two c r i t i q u e s o f Homans' S o c i a l B e h a v i o r : I t s elementary forms, A s o c i o l o g i s t ' s v i e w . American J o u r n a l o f S o c i o l o g y 67_ (196l-1962)n4,  pp. 454-458. 21  J.A. Davis, I b i d .  22 B. Abramson, Homans on exchange: of S o c i o l o g y 76 (1970)n2, pp. 273-283. 2  Hedonism r e v i v e d .  ^M. Deutsch, Homans i n t h e S k i n n e r box.  American J o u r n a l  S o c i o l o g i c a l I n q u i r y 3_4 (1964)  n2, pp. 156-165. 24 See: ( i ) J.A. D a v i s , op. c i t . ( i i ) K.C. Land and R.C. R o c k w e l l , A c r i t i c a l and programatic examination o f exchange t h e o r y . Procedings Southwest S o c i o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n 16 (1966), pp. 183-187. ( i i i ) R. M a r i s , The l o g i c a l adequacy o f Homans' s o c i a l t h e o r y . American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 35_ (1970)n6,  pp. 1069-1081. 25  See Homans, op. c i t . , (1961), chapter 14.  26 R.K. L e i k , R.M. Emerson and R.L. Burgess, The Emergence o f S t r a t i f i c a t i o n i n Exchange Networks: An e x p e r i m e n t a l d e m o n s t r a t i o n . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e West Coast Conference f o r Small Group R e s e a r c h , San Diego, March 1968. I n s t i t u t e f o r S o c i o l o g i c a l Research, U n i v e r s i t y o f Washington, S e a t t l e , Washington. Mimeographed.  CHAPTER I I THEORY The c o u p l i n g o f t h e n o t i o n o f sequences o f exchange I n t e r a c t i o n s between two p a r t i e s t o p r i n c i p l e s o f operant and p e r c e p t u a l psychology and t h e view t h a t these p r i n c i p l e s apply t o both p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d i n t h e sequences a r e the bases o f t h e t h e o r y presented i n t h i s chapter.  T h i s t h e o r y focuses on a  p r e d i c t e d tendency toward s e l e c t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n s i n c o l l e c t i v i t i e s whose members need t o exchange amounts o f r e s o u r c e s w i t h one another.  I t constitutes  an attempt t o e x p l a i n how c e r t a i n unequal d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f two dimensions o f w e a l t h can: and ( i i )  ( i ) g i v e r i s e t o t h e emergence o f c l i q u e s w i t h i n t h e c o l l e c t i v i t y ,  cause t h e members o f t h e c o l l e c t i v i t y t o approve o f t h e members o f  the c l i q u e s t o which they belong and t o disapprove o f t h e members o f t h e c l i q u e s t o which they do not belong. The t h e o r y b e i n g advanced w i l l be presented i n s e c t i o n s t h a t c e n t e r on the f o l l o w i n g f o u r areas o f concern: (ii)  ( i ) t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f b a s i c concepts,  t h e scope c o n d i t i o n s or e s s e n t i a l f e a t u r e s o f t h e e m p i r i c a l s i t u a t i o n s  t o which t h e t h e o r y i s r e l e v a n t , ( i i i ) t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r i n c i p l e s t h a t a r e assumed t o govern t h e b e h a v i o r o f t h e members o f c o l l e c t i v i t i e s t h a t meet t h e scope c o n d i t i o n s , and ( i v ) t h e f o r m a l d e r i v a t i o n o f hypotheses  regarding  the i s s u e s we a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n .  I.  THE DEFINITION OF BASIC CONCEPTS Seven concepts w i l l be d e f i n e d , here, because they a r e b a s i c t o t h e  t h e o r e t i c a l statements t h a t w i l l be made i n succeeding s e c t i o n s .  -161.  Resource Dimension.  A r e s o u r c e dimension i s any e f f e c t ( i . e . ,  behavior o r m a t e r i a l o r non m a t e r i a l commodity) t h a t i s both v a l u e d by another i n d i v i d u a l and can be t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h a t i n d i v i d u a l . " " 1  2.  I n i t i a t i o n of Exchange.  An i n i t i a t i o n o f exchange i s s a i d t o  occur when a person X o f f e r s an amount o f some r e s o u r c e t o another person Y i i n r e t u r n f o r an amount of some o t h e r resource from Y i . 3.  Exchange I n t e r a c t i o n .  An exchange i n t e r a c t i o n i s s a i d t o o c c u r  when a person X makes an i n i t i a t i o n of exchange t o another person Y i and  this  2 i n i t i a t i o n o f exchange i s accepted by Y i . 4.  The j o i n t operant c o n d i t i o n i n g paradigm.  An exchange s i t u a t i o n  i s seen t o imply a s o r t o f double S k i n n e r box i n which not only does the r a t respond t o the box but the box responds t o the r a t .  J u s t as Y i c o n s t i t u t e s a  stimulus s i t u a t i o n f o r X, X c o n s t i t u t e s a s t i m u l u s s i t u a t i o n f o r Y i .  Just  as  Y i c a n e l i c i t an i n i t i a t i o n o f exchange from X ( i . e . , an o f f e r and a r e q u e s t ) and e i t h e r p o s i t i v e l y o r n e g a t i v e l y r e i n f o r c e t h i s i n i t i a t i o n , X can e l i c i t  an  i n i t i a t i o n o f exchange from Y i and e i t h e r p o s i t i v e l y o r n e g a t i v e l y r e i n f o r c e this initiation.  This double S k i n n e r box s i t u a t i o n w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o as a  j o i n t operant c o n d i t i o n i n g s i t u a t i o n . 5-  Perceived Worth.  The p e r c e i v e d worth o f an amount o f a r e s o u r c e  i s the s u b j e c t i v e u t i l i t y t h a t the amount has f o r an i n d i v i d u a l . 6.  Net Perceived Gain f o r X i n an Exchange I n t e r a c t i o n w i t h Y i .  The net perceived g a i n f o r X i n an exchange w i t h Y i i s the p e r c e i v e d worth o f what Y i g i v e s him minus the p e r c e i v e d worth o f what he has t o g i v e Y i i n r e t u r n 7.  Cliques.  A collectivity  can be s a i d t o have s p l i t i n t o c l i q u e s  when the p r o b a b i l i t i e s f o r the p o s s i b l e exchange I n t e r a c t i o n s between a l l the d i f f e r e n t p o s s i b l e p a i r s o f members o f the c o l l e c t i v i t y  are such t h a t  the  -17members o f p a r t i c u l a r subsets o f p a i r s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l i k e l y t o e n t e r i n t o exchange i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h one another t h a n w i t h o t h e r members o f t h e collectivity.  More p r e c i s e l y , a c o l l e c t i v i t y can be s a i d t o have s p l i t i n t o  c l i q u e s when t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n d i t i o n s a r e e v i d e n t : (i)  t h e p r o b a b i l i t i e s f o r exchange i n t e r a c t i o n s between a l l  p o s s i b l e p a i r s o f members i n t h e c o l l e c t i v i t y a r e not equal and hence an unbiased, random, s o c i o m e t r i c (ii) sociometric (iii)  p a t t e r n does not p r e v a i l (see f i g u r e 1 ) ,  t h e h i g h e s t p r o b a b i l i t i e s d e f i n e two o r more d i s c r e t e , p a t t e r n s , and t h e p r o b a b i l i t i e s w i t h i n any subset o f p a i r s a r e , a t l e a s t ,  approximately equal and t h e p r o b a b i l i t i e s f o r i n t e r a c t i o n s between members w i t h i n any subset o f p a i r s and members o u t s i d e t h a t subset a r e a l l s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s t h a n t h e p r o b a b i l i t i e s f o r i n t e r a c t i o n s between members w i t h i n t h a t subset.  That i s , each subset o f p a i r s i s c l o s e d  (see f i g u r e 2).  F i g u r e 1. A  A random, unbiased s o c i o m e t r i c B  C  pattern f o r eight  actors.  D Where a l i n e equals an exchange i n t e r a c t i o n and each l i n e has an e q u a l , non-zero p r o b a b i l i t y o f occurrence - i . e . , A,B,C,D,E, F,G, o r H a r e e q u a l l y l i k e l y t o i n t e r a c t w i t h any one o f t h e o t h e r seven because each l i n e has t h e same p r o b a b i l i t y o f occurrence.  E  F  G  H  -18-  F i g u r e 2.  An example o f a non-random, b i a s e d s o c i o m e t r i c p a t t e r n f o r e i g h t actors.  A  B  •:: .-. v. •••.v.v.v.tTT.  E  II.  F  C  D  »  »  '..v.v.";.'.*:.*.v"."..v.v.w G H  Where A,E,F, and G a r e equally l i k e l y t o interact w i t h one another and a r e more l i k e l y t o i n t e r a c t w i t h one another t h a n w i t h B,C,D, o r H and B,C,D and H are equally l i k e l y t o i n t e r a c t w i t h one another and more l i k e l y t o i n t e r a c t w i t h one another t h a n w i t h A,E,F o r G.  THE SCOPE CONDITIONS OF THE THEORY The theory being presented I s r e l e v a n t t o newly formed c o l l e c t i v i t i e s  ( I . e . , c o l l e c t i v i t i e s i n which t h e r e a r e no e s t a b l i s h e d p a t t e r n s o f i n t e r a c t i o n ) f o r which t h e f o l l o w i n g seven statements a r e t r u e : 1.  There a r e f o u r o r more members' (X + Yi....Yn) so t h a t , at l e a s t ,  two c l i q u e s o f two can emerge. 2.  The members a l l have t h e same reasons f o r v a l u i n g q u a n t i t i e s o f 4  two resources  t h a t can be d e s c r i b e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g way: (I)  both are o f a d i v i s i b l e , concrete o r m a t e r i a l n a t u r e , and  5 (ii) 3.  s u c c e s s i v e amounts o f both a r e cumulative o r s t o r a b l e .  The t o t a l amounts o f both resources a r e f i x e d f o r t h e  c o l l e c t i v i t y and (because o f some environmental contingency o r other f a c t o r ) have been unequally  d i s t r i b u t e d across t h e members o f t h e c o l l e c t i v i t y i n such  a way t h a t t h e r e a r e a t l e a s t two members w i t h , a t l e a s t , roughly  complementary  -19resource p r o f i l e s on each o f two o r more net w e a l t h l e v e l s (those w i t h t h e g r e a t e s t net w e a l t h w i l l be c a l l e d 'highs' and those w i t h t h e l e a s t n e t w e a l t h w i l l be c a l l e d 'lows' - see f i g u r e 3 ) • ^  F i g u r e 3-  'High' and 'low' n e t w e a l t h l e v e l s . net w e a l t h l e v e l resource 1  I  j resource 2  Member A  Member B Lows  4.  Member C  Member D Highs  The r e s o u r c e s t h a t each member has a r e v i s i b l e t o t h e o t h e r  7 members. 5-  The c o l l e c t i v i t y has a number o f occasions d u r i n g which every  member, who wants t o , can t r y t o i n i t i a t e an exchange w i t h one o t h e r member and those members who r e c e i v e one o r more i n i t i a t i o n s can accept e i t h e r none g  or one as they wish. 6.  The members e n t e r i n t o s e v e r a l exchange i n t e r a c t i o n s b e f o r e  exchanges cease.^ 7.  W i t h i n t h e scope o f t h e l a s t c o n d i t i o n , t h e d e t a i l s o f any  exchanges t h a t occur a r e agreed upon by t h e p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d .  I n each case,  -20-  one p a r t y proposes how much o f one r e s o u r c e w i l l be exchanged f o r how much o f the o t h e r r e s o u r c e and t h e o t h e r p a r t y e i t h e r accepts o r r e j e c t s t h i s p r o p o s a l .  III.  PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS The e i g h t p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r i n c i p l e s l i s t e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n a r e assumed  to govern t h e b e h a v i o r o f t h e members o f c o l l e c t i v i t i e s t h a t a r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t h e scope c o n d i t i o n s l i s t e d i n t h e l a s t s e c t i o n .  They a r e fundmental t o  the theory b e i n g presented because they u n d e r p i n t h e arguments t h a t l e a d up t o the hypotheses t h a t a r e t h e c e n t r a l concern o f t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . Although exchange i n t e r a c t i o n s a r e t o be viewed i n terms o f t h e j o i n t operant paradigm, some o f t h e assumptions l i s t e d r e f e r t o c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s . I t i s t r u e t h a t operant t h e o r i s t s u s u a l l y a v o i d mentioning  unobservable  f a c t o r s and t h e i r f i n d i n g s have g e n e r a l l y been phrased i n terms o f what e f f e c t past p a t t e r n s o f reinforcement f o r an operant b e h a v i o r have on t h e frequency of f u t u r e n o n - r e i n f o r c e d occurrences o f t h a t operant b e h a v i o r . T h e  view  taken here, however, i s t h a t b e h a v i o r i n a c o l l e c t i v i t y - j o i n t - o p e r a n t - p a r a d i g m s i t u a t i o n cannot be adequately e x p l a i n e d without r e f e r e n c e t o a n a l y t i c p s y c h o l o g i c a l processes (which i s not t o say t h a t these processes a r e incompatible w i t h operant p r i n c i p l e s ) . Most s i t u a t i o n s t h a t operant t h e o r i s t s d e a l w i t h a r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the f a c t t h a t reinforcements a r e not experienced u n t i l t h e operant behaviors have occurred.  I n such s i t u a t i o n s , t h e o n l y way t o o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n about  the magnitude o f reinforcements t h a t w i l l f o l l o w an operant b e h a v i o r i s through t r i a l .  I n such s i t u a t i o n s , p r o p o s i t i o n s o f t h e s o r t :  the greater the  reinforcement t h a t has f o l l o w e d an operant b e h a v i o r i n t h e past t h e g r e a t e r w i l l be i t s frequency o f occurrence"^, make sense.  Yet i n a c o l l e c t i v i t y -  -21-  j o i n t - o p e r a n t - p a r a d i g m s i t u a t i o n d e f i n e d by t h e scope c o n d i t i o n s , t h e resources t h a t each member has a r e v i s i b l e t o t h e o t h e r members and t h e p o s s i b i l i t y  that  the members might operate on t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n and t r y t o estimate t h e chance t h a t an i n i t i a t i o n would have o f b e i n g accepted by each o f t h e others t a k e n i n t u r n has t o be admitted.  The f i r s t assumption r e f l e c t s t h i s admission.  In  a d d i t i o n , s i n c e operant p s y c h o l o g i c a l statements r e g a r d i n g reinforcement a r e u s u a l l y phrased i n terms t h a t seem t o i m p l y t h a t organisms a r e governed by a 12 p r i n c i p l e o f maximization of u t i l i t y o r least e f f o r t  , t h e f i r s t assumption  w i l l a l s o imply t h e p r i n c i p l e o f t h e m a x i m i z a t i o n o f u t i l i t y . 1.  I t i s assumed t h a t a member o f a c o l l e c t i v i t y w i l l be most l i k e l y  t o make i n i t i a t i o n s t h a t he p e r c e i v e s w i l l r e s u l t i n t h e g r e a t e s t n e t p e r c e i v e d gains f o r himself. Since t h e resources t h a t t h e members o f a c o l l e c t i v i t y have a r e t h e sources o f reinforcements and s i n c e each member s e t s t h e magnitude o f t h e reinforcement he r e c e i v e s when he decides what t o ask f o r i n r e t u r n f o r what he decides t o o f f e r , i t has t o be shown t h a t some members can be seen t o be sources o f g r e a t e r reinforcements than other members.  I f a member o f a  c o l l e c t i v i t y can see the o t h e r members' r e s o u r c e s and can apply t h e n o t i o n 13 of d i m i n i s h i n g m a r g i n a l u t i l i t y  t o assess t h e p e r c e i v e d worth t h a t each o f  the others would a s s i g n t o a g i v e n amount o f one o f h i s r e s o u r c e s , he c o u l d , i n f a c t , d i f f e r e n t i a t e t h e others i n terms o f t h e amount o f another resource t h a t they c o u l d be induced t o g i v e him i n r e t u r n f o r t h e g i v e n amount o f h i s resource. 2.  Assumptions 2,3, and 4 r e f l e c t t h i s argument. I t i s assumed t h a t , i f each member o f a c o l l e c t i v i t y has t h e same  reasons f o r v a l u i n g a r e s o u r c e , each member w i l l a s s i g n t h e same p e r c e i v e d 14 t h aotf each worth t 3. o a g i v eInt ti ost aassumed l amount i t . member o f a c o l l e c t i v i t y w i l l a s s i g n  l e s s p e r c e i v e d worth t o s u c c e s s i v e , equal amounts o f t h e same r e s o u r c e . ^ 4.  I t i s assumed t h a t each member o f a c o l l e c t i v i t y adopts each  other member's p o i n t o f view t o gauge how much o f one resource each c o u l d be induced t o g i v e him i n r e t u r n f o r a g i v e n amount o f another  resource."^  I t has j u s t been admitted t h a t i n c o l l e c t i v i t y - j o i n t - o p e r a n t paradigm s i t u a t i o n s i n which each member's r e s o u r c e s a r e v i s i b l e t o t h e o t h e r s , X may be a b l e t o d e c i d e , i n an a p r i o r i f a s h i o n , w i t h which o t h e r member he c o u l d d r i v e t h e hardest b a r g a i n .  I t a l s o has t o be admitted t h a t X might be a b l e  t o p e r c e i v e t h e determinants o f t h e schedule o f reinforcement each Y.  associated with  There i s , however, no reason t o assume t h a t t h e l a t t e r c o u l d be done  i n a completely a p r i o r i f a s h i o n .  F o r one t h i n g , X i s not d i r e c t l y informed  about how many other i n i t i a t i o n s Y i w i l l r e c e i v e a t t h e same time as he chooses t o make an i n i t i a t i o n t o Y i .  Nor i s X d i r e c t l y informed about t h e  s o r t o f i n i t i a t i o n s Y i w i l l r e c e i v e from t h e o t h e r s . the case t h a t X would r e q u i r e a t l e a s t some experience  I t i s most l i k e l y t o be of Yi's  behavior  before he c o u l d a c c u r a t e l y assess t h e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t Y i w i l l accept an i n i t i a t i o n from him.  Although t h e operant t h e o r i s t would u s u a l l y l i m i t  h i m s e l f t o making statements t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t t h e s t r e n g t h o f an operant i s a f u n c t i o n o f some aspect o f t h e p a t t e r n o f past reinforcements  f o r that  operant, t h e next two assumptions have been worded i n such a way t h a t t h e possibility, that:  t h e members might t r y t o estimate t h e chance t h a t an o f f e r  17 would have o f being accepted by each o f t h e other members, i s not denied. 5-  I t i s assumed t h a t , d u r i n g t h e f i r s t few o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r  exchange, a member o f a c o l l e c t i v i t y w i l l have l i t t l e b a s i s t o a n t i c i p a t e t h e number o f i n i t i a t i o n s t h a t each o f t h e o t h e r members i n h i s c o l l e c t i v i t y .  receive.  18  will  -23-  6.  I t i s assumed t h a t t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f a member o f a c o l l e c t i v i t y  i n i t i a t i n g t o a p a r t i c u l a r member i n h i s c o l l e c t i v i t y i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o how l i k e l y he p e r c e i v e s i t i s t h a t h i s i n i t i a t i o n w i l l be accepted by t h a t 19 p a r t i c u l a r member. The n o t i o n o f d i m i n i s h i n g m a r g i n a l u t i l i t y (see assumption 3) i m p l i e s t h a t t h e members o f a c o l l e c t i v i t y can i n c r e a s e t h e p e r c e i v e d worth o f t h e i r resources by exchanging amounts o f t h e r e s o u r c e s o f which they have most f o r amounts o f t h e r e s o u r c e s o f which they have l e a s t .  S i n c e t h e members o f a  c o l l e c t i v i t y do n o t have t o accept t h e i n i t i a t i o n s they r e c e i v e and s i n c e t h e d e t a i l s o f t h e i n i t i a t i o n s a r e s e t by t h e i n i t i a t o r s , any exchange i n t e r a c t i o n s t h a t do occur w i l l g e n e r a l l y i n v o l v e r e c i p r o c a l p e r c e i v e d rewards o r reinforcements. 7.  I t i s assumed t h a t : (i)  every time a member o f a c o l l e c t i v i t y makes an i n i t i a t i o n  t h a t i s accepted, h i s tendency t o repeat t h a t i n i t i a t i o n i s p o s i t i v e l y r e i n f o r c e d , and ( i i ) every time a member o f a c o l l e c t i v i t y makes an i n i t i a t i o n t h a t i s r e j e c t e d , h i s tendency t o repeat t h a t i n i t i a t i o n i s n e g a t i v e l y reinforced. 8.  I t i s f u r t h e r assumed t h a t : (i)  every time a member o f a c o l l e c t i v i t y makes an i n i t i a t i o n  t h a t i s accepted, p o s i t i v e sentiments h e l d by t h a t member toward t h e member he i n i t i a t e d t o a r e p o s i t i v e l y r e i n f o r c e d . ( i i ) every time a member o f a c o l l e c t i v i t y makes an i n i t i a t i o n t h a t i s r e j e c t e d , n e g a t i v e sentiments h e l d by t h a t member toward t h e member he i n i t i a t e d t o a r e p o s i t i v e l y r e i n f o r c e d .  -24-  IV.  DERIVATION OF HYPOTHESES The hypotheses l i s t e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n apply t o c o l l e c t i v i t i e s t h a t meet  the scope c o n d i t i o n s l i s t e d i n s e c t i o n I I . Given:  assumption 5 ( t h a t :  d u r i n g t h e f i r s t few o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r  exchange, t h e members have no b a s i s t o p e r c e i v e how much c o m p e t i t i o n t h e i r i n i t i a t i o n s w i l l r u n i n t o ) , assumption 2 ( t h a t :  the members w i l l e q u a l l y  v a l u e g i v e n t o t a l amounts o f t h e same r e s o u r c e , i f they have t h e same reasons f o r v a l u i n g i t ) , assumption 3 ( t h a t :  s u c c e s s i v e amounts o f t h e same resource  are assigned l e s s p e r c e i v e d w o r t h ) , and assumption 4 ( t h a t :  t h e members adopt  the p o i n t s o f view o f t h e o t h e r s ) , i t f o l l o w s t h a t t h e members o f a c o l l e c t i v i t y w i l l i n i t i a l l y p e r c e i v e t h a t they can get l a r g e r amounts o f a g i v e n resource from those members who have most o f i t . and assumption 1 ( t h a t :  Given t h i s c o n c l u s i o n  each member o f a c o l l e c t i v i t y i s most l i k e l y t o make  i n i t i a t i o n s t h a t he p e r c e i v e s w i l l r e s u l t i n t h e g r e a t e s t p e r c e i v e d gains f o r h i m s e l f ) , i t i s p o s s i b l e t o formulate h y p o t h e s i s 1. Hypothesis 1.  The members o f a c o l l e c t i v i t y w i l l be most l i k e l y t o d i r e c t t h e i r f i r s t i n i t i a t i o n s t o t h e members o f h i g h n e t w e a l t h (see scope c o n d i t i o n 3 f o r an e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e terms 'high' and 'low' n e t w e a l t h l e v e l s ) .  Given t h e j o i n t operant paradigm, Y i c o n s t i t u t e s a s t i m u l u s s i t u a t i o n f o r X and X c o n s t i t u t e s a stimulus s i t u a t i o n f o r Y i .  Given a sequence o f  exchange i n t e r a c t i o n s between X and Y i , Y i ' s acceptance o f X's l a s t i n i t i a t i o n can be seen not only as an acceptance o f X's l a s t i n i t i a t i o n but a l s o as an i n i t i a t i o n f o r X t o respond t o .  Hence, a f t e r , assumption 1 ( t h a t :  t h e members  o f a c o l l e c t i v i t y are most l i k e l y t o make i n i t i a t i o n s t h a t they p e r c e i v e w i l l r e s u l t i n the g r e a t e s t p e r c e i v e d gains f o r them), i t can be argued t h a t the  -25-  members w i l l be most l i k e l y t o accept i n i t i a t i o n s t h a t they p e r c e i v e w i l l r e s u l t i n t h e g r e a t e s t p e r c e i v e d g a i n s f o r them. argued, a f t e r assumption 3 ( t h a t :  I n a d d i t i o n , i t can be  s u c c e s s i v e amounts o f t h e same r e s o u r c e a r e  assigned l e s s p e r c e i v e d w o r t h ) , t h a t ( i n o b j e c t i v e terms) t h e lows w i l l t e n d t o ask t h e highs f o r more than they o f f e r .  I f , d u r i n g t h e f i r s t few  o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r exchange, a l l t h e members tend t o i n i t i a t e t o t h e highs (see hypothesis 1) but t h e lows tend t o :  ( i ) make s m a l l e r average o f f e r s  ( n e c e s s i t a t e d by scope c o n d i t i o n 6 ) , and ( i i )  a s k f o r more than they o f f e r ,  the highs w i l l tend t o accept one another's i n i t i a t i o n s and r e j e c t from t h e lows.  initiations  Given t h i s c o n c l u s i o n and e i t h e r assumption 7 ( t h a t :  the  acceptance o f i n i t i a t i o n s p o s i t i v e l y r e i n f o r c e s them and t h e r e j e c t i o n o f i n i t i a t i o n s n e g a t i v e l y r e i n f o r c e s them) o r t h e argument p r e c e d i n g assumption 6 (that:  t h e membersmight develop an a p p r e c i a t i o n o f t h e c o m p e t i t i o n they f a c e  - i n p a r t i c u l a r , t h a t they w i l l f a c e most c o m p e t i t i o n when i n i t i a t i n g t o h i g h s ) and assumption 6 ( t h a t :  t h i s a p p r e c i a t i o n . i n f l u e n c e s t h e i r c h o i c e o f members  t o i n i t i a t e t o ) , i t can f u r t h e r be concluded t h a t t h e h i g h s w i l l c o n t i n u e t o i n i t i a t e t o t h e highs and t h a t , over s u c c e s s i v e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r exchange, more and more o f t h e lows w i l l i n i t i a t e t o lows.  Thus over s e v e r a l  o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r exchange, t h e r a t e o f h i g h t o h i g h i n i t i a t i o r s i n a c o l l e c t i v i t y w i l l remain f a i r l y constant w h i l e t h e r a t e o f low t o low i n i t i a t i o n s i n a c o l l e c t i v i t y w i l l tend t o i n c r e a s e .  Hypothesis 2 i s based on  t h i s argument. Hypothesis 2  A c o l l e c t i v i t y w i l l s p l i t i n t o c l i q u e s as t h e members, through s u c c e s s i v e i n i t i a t i o n s , l e a r n w i t h which o t h e r members they can e n t e r i n t o exchange i n t e r a c t i o n s .  Before going on t o t h e next h y p o t h e s i s , two r e s e r v a t i o n s concerning h y p o t h e s i s  -262 should be noted.  The f i r s t r e s e r v a t i o n concerns t h e i n t e r a c t i o n between t h e  p e r c e i v e d worth o f an outcome and t h e s u b j e c t i v e p r o b a b i l i t y o f t h e occurrence o f t h a t outcome.  I f t h e s u b j e c t i v e p r o b a b i l i t y o f acceptance  i s looked upon as  a r i s k f a c t o r , i t can be hypothesized t h a t t h e r i s k X w i l l be prepared t o t a k e w i l l be a f u n c t i o n o f t h e s i z e o f t h e n e t p e r c e i v e d g a i n t h a t w i l l accrue t o him i f h i s i n i t i a t i o n i s accepted.  T h i s hypothesis i s o f i n t e r e s t because i t  suggests t h a t , i n t h e case o f extreme d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e highs and t h e lows, t h e lows may never end up i n i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h one another because they  20 p e r s i s t i n running a h i g h r i s k f o r a h i g h net p e r c e i v e d g a i n .  The q u e s t i o n  o f how extreme t h e d i f f e r e n c e between net w e a l t h l e v e l s can be, before t h e theory w i l l break down, I s , o f course, one t h a t c a l l s f o r e m p i r i c a l investigation. collectivity. deciding:  The second r e s e r v a t i o n concerns t h e r o l e o f c o m p e t i t i o n i n t h e Competitive processes a r e l i k e l y t o operate when members a r e  ( i ) what t o ask f o r i n r e t u r n f o r t h e i r o f f e r s , and ( i i )  they would l i k e t o exchange.  w i t h whom  Since both p a r t i e s i n an exchange i n t e r a c t i o n  u s u a l l y i n c r e a s e t h e p e r c e i v e d worth o f t h e i r r e s o u r c e s , i t might be assumed t h a t t h e members o f a c o l l e c t i v i t y w i l l be concerned not o n l y w i t h t h e i r own net p e r c e i v e d gains but a l s o w i t h t h e net p e r c e i v e d g a i n s t h a t t h e others stand t o make.  A f t e r a l l , what i s one member's r e l a t i v e g a i n I s another  21 member's r e l a t i v e l o s s . I t may even be t h e case t h a t concern w i t h net r e l a t i v e p e r c e i v e d gains would cause members t o compete most f i e r c e l y w i t h  22 those c l o s e s t t o them i n terms o f net p e r c e i v e d wealth.  One might expect,  however, t h a t such c o m p e t i t i v e f a c t o r s would o n l y become important when t h e members have more t o g a i n by h i g g l i n g and h a g g l i n g than by f r e e l y c o o p e r a t i n g ( i . e . , when each member has almost equal amounts o f both r e s o u r c e s ) ^ but such-, 2  s i t u a t i o n s do not f a l l w i t h i n t h e purview o f t h e theory b e i n g presented. Returning t o t h e g e n e r a l argument t h a t hypothesis 2 was based on, i t  -27-  f o l l o w s t h a t t h e number o f r e j e c t e d I n i t i a t i o n s w i l l be g r e a t e r f o r t h e lows than f o r the h i g h s d u r i n g the f i r s t few o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r exchange.  Because  r e j e c t e d i n i t i a t i o n s w i l l tend t o d e l a y t h e emergence o f c l i q u e s and because the delay w i l l be g r e a t e r f o r c l i q u e s i n v o l v i n g lows than f o r c l i q u e s i n v o l v i n g h i g h s , i t i s p o s s i b l e t o f o r m u l a t e the next h y p o t h e s i s . Hypothesis 3  C l i q u e s o f members o f h i g h net w e a l t h w i l l emerge w i t h i n a c o l l e c t i v i t y b e f o r e c l i q u e s o f members o f low net 24 wealth.  I t was assumed (assumption 8) t h a t the acceptance o f I n i t i a t i o n s r e i n f o r c e p o s i t i v e sentiments toward t h e a c c e p t o r and r e j e c t i o n o f i n i t i a t i o n s r e i n f o r c e n e g a t i v e sentiments toward the r e j e c t o r .  I t was a l s o n o t e d , I n t h e  argument t h a t hypothesis 2 was based on, t h a t Y i ' s acceptance o f an i n i t i a t i o n from X can be seen not o n l y as a r e i n f o r c e m e n t f o r X's i n i t i a t i o n but a l s o as an i n i t i a t i o n f o r X t o respond t o .  I f Y i ' s acceptance o f an i n i t i a t i o n from  X i s viewed as an i n i t i a t i o n t o X then an i n i t i a t i o n t o Y i from X d u r i n g the next o p p o r t u n i t y f o r exchange can be seen as an acceptance o f Y i ' s acceptance of X's l a s t i n i t i a t i o n t o Y i . I t f o l l o w s from assumption 8 and t h i s l i n e o f reasoning t h a t i t can a l s o be assumed t h a t the r e c e i p t o f an i n i t i a t i o n t h a t can be accepted r e i n f o r c e s p o s i t i v e sentiments toward t h e i n i t i a t o r and e i t h e r the non r e c e i p t o f i n i t i a t i o n s o r the r e c e i p t o f i n i t i a t i o n s t h a t cannot be accepted r e i n f o r c e s n e g a t i v e sentiments toward the i n i t i a t o r .  Given  assumption 8 and i t s c o r o l l a r y and g i v e n t h e argument t h a t t h e highs w i l l tend t o i n i t i a t e o n l y t o f e l l o w highs and w i l l r e j e c t i n i t i a t i o n s from the lows and w i l l not r e t u r n the lows' i n i t i a t i o n s so t h a t the lows w i l l end up both i n i t i a t i n g t o one another and a c c e p t i n g one another's i n i t i a t i o n s we can conclude t h a t :  ( i ) p o s i t i v e sentiments between the highs w i l l be r e i n f o r c e d ,  -28-  (ii) (iii)  n e g a t i v e sentiments between t h e highs and lows w i l l be r e i n f o r c e d , and p o s i t i v e sentiments between t h e lows w i l l be r e i n f o r c e d .  But i t has  a l r e a d y been hypothesized t h a t c l i q u e s o f highs and lows emerge i n a collectivity. Hypothesis 4  The f i n a l hypothesis t o be d e r i v e d f o l l o w s . The members o f each c l i q u e t h a t emerges w i t h i n a c o l l e c t i v i t y w i l l approve o f one another more than they w i l l approve o f t h e o t h e r members o f t h e c o l l e c t i v i t y who a r e not members o f t h e i r c l i q u e .  The theory has now been presented.  I n t h e next chapter, t h e r e s e a r c h  d e s i g n t h a t was formulated t o t e s t t h e hypotheses w i l l be d e s c r i b e d .  POOTNOTES  ^The problem o f d e f i n i n g resources i s complicated by t h e f a c t t h a t d i f f e r e n t resources appear t o have d i f f e r e n t p r o p e r t i e s . F o r example, some resources can be t r a n s f e r r e d only (e.g., money) w h i l e others can be kept and t r a n s f e r r e d a t t h e same time (e.g., knowledge). See: S. Rosen, t h e comparative r o l e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n a l and m a t e r i a l commodities i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r a n s a c t i o n s . J o u r n a l o f Experimental S o c i a l Psychology 2_ (1966), pp. 211226, f o r a d i s c u s s i o n o f an i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o t e s t t h e t h e s i s t h a t owners o f v a l u a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n would engage i n d i f f e r e n t p r i c i n g b e h a v i o r t h a n owners of v a l u a b l e m a t e r i a l commodities. Experimental support was found f o r t h e hypothesis t h a t informants i n a t h r e e person game would ask l e s s f o r i n f o r m a t i o n than s e l l e r s would f o r m a t e r i a l commodities but t h a t lenders and c o n f i d e r s would s e t t h e same p r i c e .  2 I t should be noted, as an e m p i r i c a l g e n e r a l i z a t i o n , t h a t exchanges u s u a l l y occur when X: ( i ) n o t i c e s Y i , ( i i ) sees t h a t Y i i s short o f a resource t h a t he has an excess o f and t h a t Y i has an excess o f some o t h e r resource t h a t he i s short o f , ( i i i ) o f f e r s Y i some o f t h e resource t h a t Y i i s short o f f o r some o f t h e resource t h a t he i s short o f , and ( i v ) has t h i s o f f e r accepted by Y i . 3  I t should be a p p r e c i a t e d t h a t a p r e c i s e d e f i n i t i o n o f "approximately equal" and " s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s " a r e t h e o r e t i c a l i s s u e s . Both terms must u l t i m a t e l y be d e f i n e d i n terms o f t h e o r e t i c a l p r e d i c t i o n s . l\  I n t h e i n t e r e s t o f keeping t h e theory as g e n e r a l as p o s s i b l e , n e i t h e r t h e p a r t i c u l a r reasons f o r v a l u i n g t h e resources n o r t h e a c t u a l resources a r e s t i p u l a t e d here. 5  A t t e n t i o n i s l i m i t e d t o resources w i t h these p r o p e r t i e s so t h a t : ( i ) t h e l i m i t a t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e norm o f r e c i p r o c i t y approach t o s o c i a l s t a t u s systems and t h e problems t h a t L e i k e t a l encountered (see chapter 1) can be avoided, and ( i i ) t h e relevance o f t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l assumptions l i s t e d i n t h e next s e c t i o n w i l l be maximized. What c o n s t i t u t e s a s u f f i c i e n t degree o f complementarity between i n d i v i d u a l s and how d i f f e r e n t t h e two o r more l e v e l s o f n e t w e a l t h have t o be are e m p i r i c a l i s s u e s . What i s being claimed i s t h a t t h e theory w i l l h o l d when t h e complementarities between s u b j e c t s and t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between n e t wealth l e v e l s a r e such t h a t t h e s u b j e c t s can n o t i c e them.  7 I t may be t h e case t h a t i t would be enough t o s t i p u l a t e t h a t human subjects only need a knowledge o f the operant c o n d i t i o n s but a t t e n t i o n i s nevertheless l i m i t e d t o s i t u a t i o n s i n which each member's resources a r e v i s i b l e t o the other members t o e l i m i n a t e t h e problems t h a t L e i k e t a l r a n i n t o (see chapter 1, pp. f-ld and because i t might be argued t h a t i n n a t u r a l l y o c c u r r i n g s i t u a t i o n s people tend t o a d v e r t i z e t h e i r w e a l t h l e v e l s . See, f o r example;  -30-  ( i ) T. Veblen, The Theory o f the L e i s u r e C l a s s . ( V i k i n g Press I n c . Copyright: 1899 and 1912 by M a c M i l l a n Co.), pp. 60-70 on conspicuous consumption. Reprinted i n : S o c i o l o g i c a l Theory: A book o f r e a d i n g s . E d i t e d by L.A. Coser and B. Rosenberg] (N.Y. M a c M i l l a n Co., 1957), pp. 281-391. ( i i ) Ruth Benedict, P a t t e r n s o f C u l t u r e . (Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n and Co., 1959). Chapter IV: The Northwest Coast o f America. - f o r a d i s c u s s i o n of the Northwest I n d i a n p r a c t i c e o f p o t l a t c h i n g , ( i i i ) P.M. B l a u , A theory o f s o c i a l i n t e g r a t i o n . American J o u r n a l o f Sociology LXV (1960)n6, pp. 545-556. B l a u begins w i t h the assumption t h a t persons i n t e r e s t e d I n becoming i n t e g r a t e d members i n a group are under p r e s s u r e t o impress the other members t h a t they would make a t t r a c t i v e a s s o c i a t e s , g Cf. the L e i k et a l statement ( c i t e d i n chapter 1) t h a t t h e i r p r o p o s i t i o n s assume, " t r a n s a c t i o n s i n any r e l a t i o n compete f o r a v a i l a b l e time with possible transactions i n alternative r e l a t i o n s " .  9 G e n e r a l l y t h i s w i l l be when each member has managed t o or l e s s equal amounts o f both resources. N.B., t h i s c o n d i t i o n because we are i n t e r e s t e d i n l i n k i n g the n o t i o n o f r e c i p r o c a l and l e a r n i n g e f f e c t s t o exchange theory ( i . e . , we want t o l o o k sequences o f exchange i n t e r a c t i o n s . )  a c q u i r e more i s stipulated reinforcement at extended  S e e : R.L. Burgess and R.L. Akers, Are operant p r i n c i p l e s t a u t o l o g i c a l ? P s y c h o l o g i c a l Record 16_ (1966), pp. 305-312. . The authors l i s t the operant psychological findings. x 0  S e e : Burgess and Akers (1966), I b i d . , p. 310. "The s t r e n g t h o f an operant i s a f u n c t i o n of the amount o f i t s reinforcement." Note t h a t the authors do not f o r m a l l y d e f i n e 'amount' but s t a t e t h a t the s t r e n g t h o f an operant i s a f u n c t i o n of b o t h the frequency of past reinforcement and the r a t i o of past reinforcements t o non reinforcements - i n e i t h e r case, however, the gross q u a n t i t y o f reinforcement r e c e i v e d can be seen as a f a c t o r . x l  12  ( i ) See note 8 above, ( i i ) Cf.: P.T. Young, M o t i v a t i o n and Emotion: A survey o f determinants o f human and animal a c t i v i t y . (New York: John Wiley & Sons, L t d . , 1961). Chapter 6. Young reviews the l i t e r a t u r e on s i z e of i n c e n t i v e s and performance and concludes: " . . . i n other words, the s t r e n g t h of a motive t o approach may be, i n p a r t , determined by the p e r c e i v e d magnitude of the reward." " See: K.E. B o u l d i n g , Economic A n a l y s i s : Vol.1 Mcroeconomics. (New York: Harper and Row, 1966), 4th e d i t i o n . Chapter 24. B o u l d i n g d i s c u s s e s the p r i n c i p l e of d i m i n i s h i n g u t i l i t y . LJ  14 This assumption e l i m i n a t e s the problem o f i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s w h i l e a l l o w i n g the next assumption r e g a r d i n g the p r i n c i p l e of d i m i n i s h i n g u t i l i t y t o h o l d . I t a l s o e l i m i n a t e s the d i f f i c u l t y o f d e f i n i n g resources i n a t a u t o l o g i c a l f a s h i o n t h a t Homans r a n i n t o (see chapter 1, p. 4 )•  -31-  1 5  S e e note 10.  ^ ( i ) The i d e a t h a t s o c i a l a c t o r s have t o adopt t h e standpoint o f t h e other i s w e l l entrenched i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e . See, f o r example: K.H. Turner, R o l e - t a k i n g , r o l e standpoint and reference-group behavior. American J o u r n a l o f Sociology 61 (1956), pp. 316-328. The o n l y e m p i r i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n (known t o t h i s authorT, however, i s t h a t r e p o r t e d by C o t t r e l l and Dymond. See: L.S. C o t t r e l l , J r . and R o s a l i n d P. Dymond, The empathic responses: A n e g l e c t e d f i e l d f o r research. P s y c h i a t r y X I I (1949), pp. 355-359, and R o s a l i n d F. Dymond, A s c a l e f o r t h e measurement o f empathic a b i l i t y . J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h i a t r y X I I I (1949), pp. 127-133. See a l s o appendix V o f t h i s work, ( i i ) Note. I t i s assumed t h a t each member adopts t h e p o i n t o f view o f t h e others r e g a r d i n g h i m s e l f . I t i s not assumed t h a t they adopt t h e p o i n t o f view o f each o f t h e others r e g a r d i n g a l l o f t h e o t h e r s . While i t i s a l o g i c a l p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t members c o u l d do t h e l a t t e r , i t i s assumed t h a t t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y w i l l g e n e r a l l y l i e o u t s i d e a member's p s y c h o l o g i c a l c a p a c i t y . l f  17 See: ( i ) R.D. Luce, P s y c h o l o g i c a l s t u d i e s o f r i s k y d e c i s i o n making in: S o c i a l Science Approaches t o Business Behavior. G.B. S t r o t h e r ( e d i t o r ) . R.D. I r w i n I n c . , (1962). R e p r i n t e d i n : D e c i s i o n T f a k l n g . W. Edwards and A. Tversky ( e d i t o r s ) . Penguin, (1967). Luce looks a t t h e l i t e r a t u r e on "choices t h a t people make among a l t e r n a t i v e s t h a t a r e r i s k y " and concludes, "...Human beings appear t o be b o t h 'adaptive' and c o g n i t i v e ' ; they sometimes a d j u s t t h e i r behavior g r a d u a l l y t o experience, and they sometimes 'understand' and analyze choice s i t u a t i o n s . Furthermore, both processes o f t e n seem t o go on at t h e same time. The c u r r e n t l e a r n i n g t h e o r i e s a r e e x c l u s i v e l y a d a p t i v e whereas, almost by d e f i n i t i o n , t h e s t a t i c assumptions o f t h e preference t h e o r i e s a r e c o g n i t i v e . " (p. 350, Edwards & Tversky). Luce goes on t o p o i n t out t h a t models which s y n t h e s i z e t h e two processes a r e r e q u i r e d , ( i i ) appendix IX f o r coded comments e l i c i t e d by post experimental q u e s t i o n : I f you r e c e i v e d two o r more s i m i l a r o f f e r s a t t h e same time what f a c t o r s would you t a k e i n t o account i n d e c i d i n g which one t o accept? 18  See: note 16 ( i i ) . Assumption 5 r e s t s on a s i m i l a r assessment o f t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l c a p a c i t y o f t h e members o f a c o l l e c t i v i t y . "^See: Burgess and Akers (1966), op. Reinforcement: Given a number o f a v a i l a b l e same r e i n f o r c e r , t h e operant which produces amount, frequency and p r o b a b i l i t y w i l l have occurence."  c i t . "2.a.9. Law o f D i f f e r e n t i a l operants, a l l o f which produce t h e the r e i n f o r c e r I n the greatest the greatest p r o b a b i l i t y of  20  ( i ) See: S. S i e g e l , L e v e l s o f a s p i r a t i o n and d e c i s i o n making, chapter 8 i n : D e c i s i o n and Choice: C o n t r i b u t i o n s o f Sidney S i e g e l . S. Messick and A. H. B r a y f i e l d ( e d i t o r s ) . (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964). . . . I t may be s a i d t h a t i f v a r i o u s a l t e r n a t i v e s a r e a v a i l a b l e t o an i n d i v i d u a l , he w i l l choose from among t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s , toward each o f which he has a s u b j e c t i v e p r o b a b i l i t y o f attainment and a u t i l i t y , so as t o maximize s u b j e c t i v e expected u t i l i t y . . . " (p. 124). A l s o chapters 11, 13 and 17 by S. S i e g e l ; S. S i e g e l and tT  J u l i a M. Andrews; and J u l i a M. Andrews, r e s p e c t i v e l y . A l s o S. S i e g e l i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h A l b e r t a E. S i e g e l and J u l i a M. Andrews, Choice S t r a t e g y and Utility. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964), f o r r e p o r t s o f experimental i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f S i e g e l ' s s u b j e c t i v e expected u t i l i t y h y p o t h e s i s , ( i i ) Cf. the operant p s y c h o l o g i c a l f i n d i n g t h a t i n t e r m i t t a n t reinforcement leads t o more en daring response r a t e s than continuous reinforcement - see: Burgess and Akers  (1966), op. c i t . , p. 310, 2.a.3- and 2.a.4.  21 See: D.M. Messick and W.B. Thorngate, R e l a t i v e g a i n maximization m experimental games, J o u r n a l o f Experimental S o c i a l Psychology 3_ (1967), pp. 85101. The authors advance evidence f o r the hypothesis t h a t r e l a t i v e g a i n i s an important g o a l i n experimental games.  22 See: I.C. Whittemore, The c o m p e t i t i v e consciousness. Journal o f Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology 20 (1925-26)nl, pp. 17-33- Whittemore r a n the same groups o f 4 s u b j e c t s f o r a number o f s e s s i o n s d u r i n g each o f which the s u b j e c t s worked at a c o m p e t i t i v e t a s k . He concluded t h a t s u b j e c t s tended t o s i n g l e out the f e l l o w group member whose s k i l l was most n e a r l y the same as h i s own as h i s p r i n c i p a l r i v a l . 23  During p i l o t work w i t h the r e s e a r c h d e s i g n d e s c r i b e d i n the next chapter, i t was observed t h a t s u b j e c t s d i d tend t o begin h i g g l i n g and h a g g l i n g at t h i s p o i n t and hence the experiments t h a t were e v e n t u a l l y r u n , and r e p o r t e d I n chapter 4, were terminated before each subject had managed t o get two s i m i l a r s i z e d p i l e s o f resources i n f r o n t o f him. Hypotheses 2 and 3 were d e r i v e d t o see how w e l l the theory advanced here handles the p r e d i c t i o n s t h a t L e i k et a l (1968) were i n t e r e s t e d i n making (see chapter 1, p. 6 ).  CHAPTER I I I RESEARCH DESIGN The r e s e a r c h d e s i g n , d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s c h a p t e r , was formulated t o t e s t the hypotheses d e r i v e d from t h e theory t h a t was presented i n t h e l a s t chapter. I t was formulated t o meet both t h e c r i t i c i s m s t h a t were l e v e l e d a g a i n s t t h e r e s e a r c h d e s i g n used by L e i k e t a l (see chapter 1) and t h e scope c o n d i t i o n s l i s t e d a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e l a s t chapter.  I t was t h e end r e s u l t o f p i l o t  work i n which over two hundred s u b j e c t s were used i n some f o r t y d i f f e r e n t experiments  (see appendix 1 ) .  B a s i c a l l y , the r e s e a r c h d e s i g n centered on a type o f game s i t u a t i o n . Subjects who had been g i v e n s u p p l i e s o f both y e l l o w and b l u e buttons s a t i n a c i r c l e and exchanged buttons o f one c o l o u r f o r buttons o f t h e o t h e r c o l o u r . The t h e o r y , s e t out i n t h e l a s t c h a p t e r , d e a l s w i t h f i x e d amounts o f two d i f f e r e n t resources t h a t have been d i s t r i b u t e d across t h e members o f a collectivity.  A resource was d e f i n e d as any e f f e c t t h a t i s both v a l u e d by  another i n d i v i d u a l and can be t r a n s f e r r e d t o him ( d e f i n i t i o n 1, p.16).  I t was  then s p e c i f i e d t h a t a t t e n t i o n would be l i m i t e d t o only those r e s o u r c e s t h a t have the p r o p e r t i e s o f : c o n d i t i o n 2).  divisibility,  concreteness and c u m u l a t i v i t y (scope  I t was f u r t h e r s t i p u l a t e d t h a t each member o f a c o l l e c t i v i t y  would have t h e same reasons f o r v a l u i n g t h e resources (scope c o n d i t i o n 2 ) .  To  s a t i s f y these requirements t h e two resources were o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d as 2520, 7/8" diameter,blue buttons and 2520, 7/8" diameter,yellow buttons.  Subjects  l i s t e n e d t o tape recorded i n s t r u c t i o n s (see appendix I I I ) from which they gained c e r t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n concerning these buttons.  F i r s t , s u b j e c t s were t o l d  t h a t they were going t o p l a y a game t h a t would be r u n i n two p a r t s and t h a t i n  -34the second p a r t o f t h e game they would need q u a n t i t i e s o f both c o l o u r s because the two c o l o u r s would be used f o r completely d i f f e r e n t purposes.  Second, by  r e f e r e n c e t o a t a b l e o f f i g u r e s pinned i n f r o n t o f each subject (see appendix I I ) , i t was demonstrated t h a t t h e p r i n c i p l e o f d i m i n i s h i n g m a r g i n a l a p p l i e d t o both r e s o u r c e s .  utility  T h i s t a b l e was p r o v i d e d because t h e r e s u l t s o f  p i l o t work (see appendix I ) had suggested t h a t t h e p r i n c i p l e o f d i m i n i s h i n g m a r g i n a l u t i l i t y o n l y operates i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h knowledge about p r o s p e c t i v e use ( i . e . , t h e s i z e o f t h e u n i t s t h a t a r e used t o measure amounts o f t h e resource i s s e t i n accordance w i t h t h e use t o which t h e resource gets p u t ) . I t had t h e advantage o f s t a n d a r d i z i n g t h e v a l u e o f g i v e n numbers o f t h e d i f f e r e n t c o l o u r e d buttons without n e c e s s i t a t i n g f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e second p a r t o f t h e game.  Buttons were employed s i n c e i t was assumed t h a t they  would be f r e e from a s s o c i a t i o n s t h a t would i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e i n f o r m a t i o n g i v e n to the subjects. Each experiment began w i t h a l l t h e resources d i s t r i b u t e d across a collectivity.  No f u r t h e r resources entered t h e s i t u a t i o n once an experiment  had begun. The theory d e a l s w i t h s i t u a t i o n s i n which t h e resources have been d i s t r i b u t e d i n such a way t h a t a t l e a s t two s u b j e c t s have complementary resource p r o f i l e s on a t l e a s t two p e r c e i v a b l y d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f net wealth c o n d i t i o n 3).  P i l o t work (see appendix 1),  (scope  however, i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e  s i t u a t i o n s should accommodate s u b j e c t s ' tendency t o vary t h e i r responses (perhaps t o r e l i e v e boredom). P r o v i s i o n o f two a l t e r n a t i v e p o t e n t i a l exchange 1  p a r t n e r s on each net resource l e v e l p e r m i t t e d s u b j e c t s t o vary t h e i r responses without n e c e s s a r i l y v i o l a t i n g t h e p r i n c i p l e o n which t h e theory i s based. Since I t was f e l t t h a t t h e problem o f response v a r i a b i l i t y might a l s o be r e l a t e d t o t h e f a c t t h a t , a f t e r t h e f i r s t o p p o r t u n i t y f o r exchange, some  -35-  s u b j e c t s had two p i l e s of resources w h i l e others s t i l l had only one because they had f a i l e d t o enter i n t o an exchange, i t was decided t h a t s u b j e c t s should b e g i n w i t h a s m a l l amount o f t h e i r non-predominant resource. who  Thus s u b j e c t s  f a i l e d t o e n t e r i n t o an exchange d u r i n g the f i r s t o p p o r t u n i t y t o do  were not conspicuous  so  at the s t a r t o f the next o p p o r t u n i t y f o r exchange because  they s t i l l had o n l y one resource i n f r o n t o f them.  The resources were  i n i t i a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d across c o l l e c t i v i t i e s o f e i g h t s u b j e c t s i n the manner i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e 4.  F i g u r e 4.  D i s t r i b u t i o n s o f resources f o r net resource  experiments,  level  resource 1 ]  resource 2  Four Lows Note:  Four Highs  each low has two p o s s i b l e p a r t n e r s on h i s own net wealth l e v e l .  Note:  each h i g h has two p o s s i b l e p a r t n e r s on h i s own net wealth l e v e l .  Each s u b j e c t , then, began the experiment w i t h predetermined both resources:  amounts o f  a s m a l l amount o f one and a much l a r g e r amount o f the other.  The d i f f e r e n t amounts were weighed out, b e f o r e t h e s u b j e c t s a r r i v e d , t o an p  accuracy o f b e t t e r than  1%.  Scope c o n d i t i o n 4 s t a t e s t h a t the members o f a c o l l e c t i v i t y can see  -36what resources  each o f the other members have.  T h i s requirement n e c e s s i t a t e d  s p e c i a l screens o r booths (see appendix I I ) t o e l i m i n a t e u n c o n t r o l l e d f a c t o r s such as f a c i a l e x p r e s s i o n s , c l o t h i n g d i f f e r e n c e s , e t c . t h a t might be expected t o a f f e c t choices o f i n t e r a c t i o n p a r t n e r s .  Booths were c o n s t r u c t e d t h a t  had  windows covered w i t h a semi-sheer gauze m a t e r i a l and a 4" gap at the bottom. The gaps made i t p o s s i b l e f o r the s u b j e c t s t o keep t h e i r buttons out i n f r o n t o f the booths and the windows allowed each subject t o see what resources each of the others had.  the  The booths were arranged i n a c i r c l e and a l i g h t i n  the center caused each subject t o s i t i n the shadow o f h i s booth. subject c o u l d i d e n t i f y the other members o f h i s c o l l e c t i v i t y by  Each  letters  p r i n t e d at the top o f the booths (G,H,...N t o a v o i d alpha p r e f e r e n c e ) and each subject's own  l e t t e r was p r i n t e d again i n s i d e h i s booth.  The copy of the t a b l e t h a t was used t o demonstrate t h a t the p r i n c i p l e of d i m i n i s h i n g m a r g i n a l u t i l i t y a p p l i e d t o both resources was i n n e r l e f t hand s i d e o f each booth.  pinned t o the  A c a r d pinned j u s t below the window  i n s i d e each booth t o l d each subject how many buttons o f each c o l o u r he had  to  b e g i n w i t h (see appendix I I ) and he was provided w i t h a p e n c i l and paper so t h a t he c o u l d keep t r a c k of how many buttons o f both c o l o u r s he  had.  Scope c o n d i t i o n 5 s t i p u l a t e s t h a t the members o f a c o l l e c t i v i t y  are  g i v e n a number o f o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o i n t e r a c t w i t h one another i f they want t o and t h a t the d e t a i l s of any exchanges t h a t take p l a c e are agreed upon by p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d ( a l l o w i n g f o r scope c o n d i t i o n 6). s a t i s f i e d i n the f o l l o w i n g way. i n i t i a t i o n forms (see f i g u r e 5).  the  These c o n d i t i o n s were  Each subject was g i v e n a bowl and a p i l e of A second card pinned j u s t below the window  i n s i d e each booth t o l d each subject t h a t t h e r e were r e s t r i c t i o n s on the s i z e of the o f f e r s he could make and the number o f buttons he c o u l d g i v e i n r e t u r n . This second set of cards informed the s u b j e c t s t h a t although they were f r e e t o  -37request whatever they thought t h e other s u b j e c t s would be prepared t o g i v e them i n r e t u r n f o r t h e i r o f f e r s , they c o u l d n e i t h e r make o f f e r s o f more than 1/20 o f t h e i n i t i a l numbers o f buttons i n t h e i r l a r g e s t p i l e s n o r accept any o f f e r s t h a t r e q u i r e d them t o g i v e more than 1/20 o f the i n i t i a l numbers o f buttons i n t h e i r l a r g e s t p i l e s i n r e t u r n (see appendix I I ) . These r e s t r i c t i o n s were n e c e s s i t a t e d by scope c o n d i t i o n 6 which s t a t e s t h a t every member o f a c o l l e c t i v i t y enters i n t o s e v e r a l exchange i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h t h e other members of the c o l l e c t i v i t y .  They were imposed so t h a t each s u b j e c t would have t o  e n t e r i n t o s e v e r a l exchange i n t e r a c t i o n s .  They can a l s o be j u s t i f i e d by  a p p e a l i n g t o t h e common sense n o t i o n t h a t people w i t h a l o t tend t o d e a l i n l a r g e r u n i t s than people w i t h a l i t t l e .  I t might a l s o be p o i n t e d out t h a t i t  i s u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e l i m i t s would have a n y t h i n g t o do w i t h whether s u b j e c t s asked f o r more o r l e s s than they o f f e r e d . F i g u r e 5.  An i n i t i a t i o n form. —  • — —  Initiator's  :  :  _  letter  W i l l g i v e (No.) f o r (No.)  ,  Offer directed to: yellow yellow  ( c i r c l e one) blue  blue ( c i r c l e one)  (letter)!  buttons buttons  accept r e j ect The tape recorded i n s t r u c t i o n s (see appendix I I I ) Informed t h e s u b j e c t s t h a t d u r i n g t h e f i r s t p a r t o f the game they have a number o f o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o exchange buttons w i t h the other s u b j e c t s and t h e procedure f o r e n t e r i n g i n t o  -38-  exchanges was  explained i n d e t a i l .  I n l i n e w i t h scope c o n d i t i o n 5j  subjects  were t o l d t h a t they n e i t h e r had t o make an o f f e r o f exchange nor had t o any o f f e r d u r i n g an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r exchange.  accept  They were a l s o t o l d t h a t they  c o u l d not accept more than one o f f e r d u r i n g each o p p o r t u n i t y f o r exchange. The s u b j e c t s were t o l d t o l o o k through t h e i r screens a t t h e s t a r t o f each o p p o r t u n i t y f o r exchange t o see what resources each o f the other s u b j e c t s had and decide whether they wanted t o send an o f f e r t o one o f them.  I f they  wanted t o send an o f f e r , they were t o f i l l i n an i n i t i a t i o n form and count out the buttons t h a t they wanted t o o f f e r .  I n i t i a t i o n forms and buttons were  then t o be put i n the bowls and the experimenter would d e l i v e r each bowl t o the booth t o which i t was addressed.  S i n c e each s u b j e c t had o n l y one bowl,  each s u b j e c t c o u l d send o n l y one o f f e r d u r i n g each o p p o r t u n i t y f o r exchange. The s u b j e c t s d i d not t a l k t o one  another.  At the same time t h a t a s u b j e c t had sent h i s bowl around t o one o f the other booths he c o u l d r e c e i v e more than one bowl, though as s t a t e d above, he c o u l d not accept more than one  offer.  I f a s u b j e c t accepted an o f f e r , he had t o put a check on the i n i t i a t i o n form t h a t accompanied i t , take the buttons sent t o him and r e p l a c e them w i t h the buttons requested.  I f a subject r e j e c t e d an o f f e r , he had t o put a c r o s s  on the i n i t i a t i o n form t h a t accompanied i t . At the end o f each o p p o r t u n i t y f o r exchange the experimenter r e t u r n e d the bowls and i n i t i a t i o n forms so t h a t each subject c o u l d see the check or c r o s s on the form he had j u s t sent then the forms were c o l l e c t e d and put t o one s i d e .  and  Once the used i n i t i a t i o n  forms had been c o l l e c t e d , the next o p p o r t u n i t y f o r exchange began.  Subjects  could not see how many o f f e r s the others r e c e i v e d d u r i n g each o p p o r t u n i t y f o r exchange:  nor c o u l d they see whether t h e i r o f f e r s had been accepted  t h e i r bowls had been r e t u r n e d .  until  -39-  The procedure used, then, met b o t h the c r i t i c i s m made o f L e i k et a l ' s experimental d e s i g n , t h a t the s u b j e c t s c o u l d i n i t i a t e t o more than one person at a time (see chapter I ) , and the t h e o r e t i c a l requirement,  that transactions  i n any r e l a t i o n compete f o r a v a i l a b l e time w i t h p o s s i b l e t r a n s a c t i o n s i n alternative relations. I t should a l s o be noted t h a t t h e s u b j e c t s were t o l d t h a t the f i r s t p a r t o f the game would be c o m p e t i t i v e i n the sense t h a t each s u b j e c t would be  out  f o r h i m s e l f and t h a t t h e r e would be p l e n t y o f time f o r each s u b j e c t t o make as many o f f e r s as he needed t o make. A f t e r the seventh o p p o r t u n i t y f o r exchange, the s u b j e c t s were asked t o answer some questions before going on (see appendix V ) .  Once these  had been answered, the s u b j e c t s were t o l d t h a t the experiment was  questions  actually  over and t h a t the experimenter would d i s c u s s I t w i t h them. F i n a l l y , a t t e n t i o n should be drawn t o t h r e e g e n e r a l f e a t u r e s o f the r e s e a r c h design.  F i r s t , i n every experiment r u n , the h i g h b l u e , h i g h y e l l o w ,  low blue and low y e l l o w s u b j e c t s were always p o s i t i o n e d around the  circle  according t o the same p a t t e r n so t h a t p o s s i b l e p o s i t i o n e f f e c t s would be kept constant.  Second, the assignment o f s u b j e c t s t o t h e booths can be assumed t o  be random i n t h a t the s u b j e c t s met o u t s i d e the l a b o r a t o r y before b e i n g shown i n and were asked t o s i t at any vacant booth.  L a s t l y , s i n c e the magnitude o f  the d i f f e r e n c e between the two l e v e l s o f net wealth ( i . e . , x i n f i g u r e 4)  was  the independent v a r i a b l e , experiments were run w i t h t h i s v a r i a b l e set at d i f f e r e n t values. While much has been programmed i n t o the experimental s i t u a t i o n j u s t d e s c r i b e d , f o r example, the reasons f o r needing q u a n t i t i e s o f buttons o f both colours and the p r i n c i p l e o f d i m i n i s h i n g marginal u t i l i t y , the s u b j e c t s were s t i l l f r e e t o choose w i t h whom they wanted t o i n i t i a t e exchanges and, w i t h i n  the l i m i t s imposed, whose o f f e r s they would accept. I n o t h e r words, t h e experimental d e s i g n should enable us t o t e s t whether t h e hypotheses d e r i v e d on the b a s i s o f t h e assumptions r e g a r d i n g t h e way t h e buttons would be v a l u e d actually hold.  I t i s t r u e t h a t experimental designs f o r m u l a t e d i n t h e f u t u r e  c o u l d p r o f i t a b l y be focused on t h e assumptions t h a t were programmed i n t o t h e d e s i g n advanced i n t h i s chapter.  I t i s a l s o taken t o be t r u e t h a t no  single  experimental d e s i g n would enable us t o t e s t every aspect o f t h e theory s e t out I n chapter I I . The r e s u l t s f o r experiments based on t h e d e s i g n advanced, t h e n , w i l l be presented and e v a l u a t e d i n t h e next chapter.  FOOTNOTES  S i e g a l e t a l p o s t u l a t e s t h a t t h e c h o i c e o f a response i n p r o b a b i l i s t i c s i t u a t i o n s i s determined by t h e u t i l i t y o f a c o r r e c t response and t h e u t i l i t y of v a r y i n g c h o i c e s t o escape boredom. See: e.g., D e c i s i o n s and Choice: C o n t r i b u t i o n s o f Sidney S i e g e l . E d i t e d by S. Messick and A.H. B r a y f i e l d . (New York: M c G r a w - H i l l , 1964). 2  A beam balance and c a r e f u l l y counted p i l e s o f buttons as standard weights were employed f o r t h i s t a s k .  -42-  CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND EVALUATION OP RESULTS The r e s u l t s o f t h e t h r e e s e t s o f experiments t h a t were c a r r i e d out a r e r e p o r t e d and e v a l u a t e d i n t h i s chapter. S u b j e c t s were f i r s t and second y e a r , male-student v o l u n t e e r s .  1  There were 6 experiments i n t h e f i r s t s e t , 6 2  experiments i n t h e second s e t and 8 experiments i n t h e t h i r d s e t .  There were  no d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e s u b j e c t s ' i n i t i a l net w e a l t h l e v e l s i n t h e f i r s t set  o f experiments, moderate d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e s u b j e c t s ' i n i t i a l n e t  w e a l t h l e v e l s i n t h e second s e t and extreme d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e s u b j e c t s ' i n i t i a l n e t w e a l t h l e v e l s i n t h e t h i r d s e t . The a c t u a l d i s t r i b u t i o n o f resources f o r t h e t h r e e s e t s o f experiments a r e s e t out i n Table 1. Table 1.  The I n i t i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n s o f Resources Across C o l l e c t i v i t i e s f o r Each E x p e r i m e n t a l C o n d i t i o n No. Subjects  F i r s t Set: No I n i t i a l n e t r e s o u r c e d i f f e r e n c e s between subjects Second S e t : Moderate i n i t i a l net resource d i f f e r e n c e s between s u b j e c t s  Third Set: Extreme i n i t i a l net resource d i f f e r e n c e s between s u b j e c t s  No. o f yellow buttons  No. o f blue buttons  4  600  +  30  =  630 each  4  30  +  600  =  630 each  2  700  +  30  =  730 each  2  30  +  700  =  730 each  2  500  +  30  =  530 each  2  30  +  500  =  530 each  2  800  +  30  =  830 each  2  30  +  800  =  830 each  2  400  +  30  =  430 each  2  30  +  400  =  430 each  I n a l l t h r e e s e t s o f experiments, t h e booths were always p l a c e d i n t h e same l o c a t i o n v i s a v i s one another and t h e G,H,I and J s u b j e c t s always began w i t h a g r e a t e r number o f b l u e buttons than y e l l o w buttons w h i l e t h e K,L,M and N s u b j e c t s always began w i t h a g r e a t e r number o f y e l l o w buttons than b l u e buttons (see F i g u r e 6). F i g u r e 6.  P o s i t i o n o f Booths v i s a v i s One Another, and t h e C o l o u r o f t h e Largest P i l e o f Buttons put i n F r o n t o f Each Booth, i n Every Experiment Run  Blue H  Blue J  Yellow M  Yellow L  Yellow K  Yellow N  Blue I  Blue G I n t h e second and t h i r d s e t s o f experiments, t h e " h i g h " d i s t r i b u t i o n s ( i . e . , 730 buttons i n t h e case o f t h e second s e t and 830 buttons i n t h e case of t h e t h i r d s e t ) were always p l a c e d i n f r o n t o f t h e I,J,M and N booths w h i l e the "low" d i s t r i b u t i o n s ( i . e . , 530 buttons i n t h e case o f t h e second s e t and 430 buttons i n t h e case o f t h e t h i r d s e t ) were always p l a c e d i n f r o n t o f t h e G,H,K and L booths (see F i g u r e 7)-  -45F i g u r e 7-  P o s i t i o n o f t h e High and Low Net Wealth L e v e l Members i n t h e Moderate and Extreme D i f f e r e n c e s Experiments Low H  High J  High M  Low L  Low K  High N  High I  Low G '  Thus t h e p o s i t i o n s o f t h e booths v i s al v i s one another were kept constant  and t h e r e s o u r c e s were d i s t r i b u t e d around t h e c o l l e c t i v i t i e s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e same g e n e r a l p a t t e r n .  I n t h e moderate and extreme d i f f e r e n c e s c o n d i t i o n s , t h e  highs were always t h e I,J,M and N s u b j e c t s and t h e lows were always t h e G,H,K and L s u b j e c t s . the  Consequently, t h e behavior o f t h e I,J,M and N s u b j e c t s and  G,H,Kand L s u b j e c t s can be compared b o t h w i t h i n each s e t o f experiments  and across s e t s o f experiments. Once a g a i n , t h e r e were no d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e I,J,M and N s u b j e c t s ' i n i t i a l net w e a l t h l e v e l s and t h e G,H,K and L s u b j e c t s ' i n i t i a l net w e a l t h l e v e l s i n the f i r s t s e t o f experiments w h i l e t h e r e were moderate d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e second s e t and extreme d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e t h i r d s e t .  I n t h e second and  t h i r d s e t s o f experiments, t h e I,J,M and N s u b j e c t s were " h i g h s " and t h e G,H,K and L s u b j e c t s were "lows".  To f a c i l i t a t e comparisons between t h e r e s u l t s o f  -46-  the three s e t s o f experiments, t h e I,J,M and N s u b j e c t s i n t h e f i r s t s e t w i l l be c a l l e d " h i g h - p o s i t i o n " s u b j e c t s and t h e G,H,K and L s u b j e c t s i n t h e f i r s t set o f experiments w i l l be c a l l e d " l o w - p o s i t i o n " s u b j e c t s . Given t h a t t h e magnitude o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e I,J,M and N s u b j e c t s and t h e G,H,K and L s u b j e c t s i s t h e independent v a r i a b l e i n t h e theory t o be t e s t e d , t h e emergence o f c l i q u e s should be evidenced only by t h e d a t a f o r t h e second and t h i r d sets o f experiments.  Moreover, t h e emergence o f  c l i q u e s should be evidenced most s t r o n g l y by t h e d a t a f o r t h e t h i r d s e t because the Independent v a r i a b l e was f i x e d a t t h e h i g h e s t l e v e l f o r the t h i r d set o f experiments. Because t h e independent v a r i a b l e was f i x e d a t zero f o r t h e f i r s t s e t o f experiments, any non random p a t t e r n s o f i n t e r a c t i o n among t h e h i g h - p o s i t i o n s u b j e c t s and among t h e l o w - p o s i t i o n s u b j e c t s o r between t h e h i g h - p o s i t i o n and l o w - p o s i t i o n s u b j e c t s have t o be i n t e r p r e t e d as a consequence o f a f a c t o r t h a t was common t o a l l s e t s o f experiments (e.g., t h e order i n which t h e booths were set up v i s a v i s one another). operate.  I t seems t h a t such a f a c t o r d i d , i n f a c t ,  Twenty-three o f t h e 47 i n i t i a t i o n s made by t h e f i r s t s e t o f s u b j e c t s  d u r i n g t h e i r f i r s t o p p o r t u n i t y f o r exchange were d i r e c t e d t o the most v i s i b l e p o t e n t i a l partners  ( i . e . , t h e s u b j e c t s w i t h complementary resource  who were most d i r e c t l y i n f r o n t o f them).  profiles  T h i r t e e n o f t h e 47 i n i t i a t i o n s were  d i r e c t e d t o t h e two s i d e p o s i t i o n s and 11 were d i r e c t e d t o t h e immediately adjacent p o s i t i o n (see F i g u r e 8 and appendix I V ) . s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .001 p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .  This r e s u l t i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y  Given t h i s r e s u l t and t h e f a c t t h a t  the most v i s i b l e p o t e n t i a l p a r t n e r f o r an I,J,M o r N ( i . e . ,  high-position)  subject was a G,H,K o r L ( i . e . , l o w - p o s i t i o n ) subject and v i c e v e r s a , i t must be concluded t h a t t h e s e a t i n g arrangement c r e a t e d a b i a s toward i n t e r a c t i o n s between h i g h - p o s i t i o n subjects and l o w - p o s i t i o n s u b j e c t s i n t h e no d i f f e r e n c e s  condition.  Moreover, because the p o s i t i o n s o f the booths v i s a v i s one  another were kept constant and the r e s o u r c e s were always d i s t r i b u t e d around c o l l e c t i v i t i e s a c c o r d i n g t o the same g e n e r a l p a t t e r n , i t must be concluded t h a t the b i a s toward i n t e r a c t i o n s between I,J,M and N and G,H,K would have F i g u r e 8.  also  and L s u b j e c t s  operated i n the moderate and extreme d i f f e r e n c e s c o n d i t i o n s .  An Example o f the V i s i b i l i t y o f P o t e n t i a l Exchange  Partners  Predominant Blue H Predominant Blue J  Predominant Yellow M  Predominant Yellow L  (Most v i s i b l e potential partner f o r G)  Predominant Yellow K  Predominant Yellow N  Predominant Blue I Predominant Blue G  I f i t i s assumed t h a t a p r e s s u r e t o i n i t i a t e t o t h e most v i s i b l e complementary p r o f i l e p o s i t i o n e x i s t e d i n each e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n i t must a l s o be assumed t h a t the moderate and extreme d i f f e r e n c e experiments are more severe t e s t s o f the hypotheses d e r i v e d i n chapter I I than would be t h e case i f t h i s p r e s s u r e had not operated. That i s , i n the cases o f the moderate and extreme d i f f e r e n c e experiments, the theory p r e d i c t s the e v e n t u a l emergence of p a t t e r n s o f i n t e r a c t i o n s not between I,J,M and N s u b j e c t s and G,H,K  and L  -48s u b j e c t s but among the I,J,M and N s u b j e c t s and among t h e G,H,K and L s u b j e c t s . Put another way, t h e theory p r e d i c t s t h e eventual emergence o f c l i q u e s composed o f highs and composed o f lows r a t h e r than t h e eventual emergence o f c l i q u e s composed o f both highs and lows. The r e s e a r c h d e s i g n , d e s c r i b e d i n t h e l a s t c h a p t e r , produced two sources o f data t h a t can be used t o t e s t d i f f e r e n t aspects o f t h e t h e o r y . The i n i t i a t i o n forms t h a t were c o l l e c t e d a t t h e end o f each o p p o r t u n i t y f o r exchange c o n s t i t u t e the f i r s t source o f data w h i l e t h e responses t o t h e post experimental questions c o n s t i t u t e t h e second.  Each o f t h e f o u r hypotheses  t o be t e s t e d w i l l be t a k e n i n t u r n and d i s c u s s e d i n terms o f : t h e k i n d o f data c a l l e d f o r , t h e s o r t o f r e s u l t s t h a t c o u l d be accepted as s u p p o r t i n g t h e hypothesis i n q u e s t i o n , t h e a c t u a l r e s u l t s t h a t were obtained and t h e conclusions regarding the v a l i d i t y o f the hypothesis. Hypothesis 1.  The members o f a c o l l e c t i v i t y w i l l be most l i k e l y t o d i r e c t t h e i r f i r s t i n i t i a t i o n s t o t h e members o f h i g h net wealth.  I f Hypothesis 1 i s v a l i d , s i g n i f i c a n t l y more o f t h e highs and lows i n the second and t h i r d s e t s o f experiments  should have d i r e c t e d t h e i r f i r s t  i n i t i a t i o n toward a h i g h than toward a low. The h y p o t h e s i s , moreover, should be more s t r o n g l y supported by t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e t h i r d s e t o f experiments than by the r e s u l t s o f t h e second s e t because t h e independent v a r i a b l e was set at a more extreme value f o r the t h i r d set o f experiments. i n d i c a t e s the a c t u a l r e s u l t s obtained.  Table 2  Table 2.  I n i t i a t i o n s D i r e c t e d Toward Highs During the F i r s t Opportunity Exchange under Each Experimental C o n d i t i o n  for  Imbalance i n D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Resources No i n i t i a l n e t resource differences between s u b j e c t s I n i t i a t i o n s made by Highs towards Highs*  17.1%  I n i t i a t i o n s made by Lows towards Highs  62.5$  Moderate i n i t i a l net resource differences between s u b j e c t s  45-8% (N23)**  (N24)  70.8$  Extreme i n i t i a l net resource differences between s u b j e c t s  (N24)  (N24)  90.3$  90.7$  (N31)**  (N32)  * High and low terms p r o p e r l y apply o n l y t o moderate and extreme d i f f e r e n c e s c o n d i t i o n s ( i . e . , i n the no d i f f e r e n c e s c o n d i t i o n , t h e highs are h i g h p o s i t i o n s u b j e c t s and the lows a r e l o w - p o s i t i o n s u b j e c t s ) . ** one s u b j e c t chose t o not make an i n i t i a t i o n d u r i n g t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y f o r exchange. E f f e c t o f resource imbalance (i) X ^ f o r p r o p o r t i o n o f s u b j e c t s i n no d i f f e r e n c e experiments and p r o p o r t i o n o f s u b j e c t s i n moderate d i f f e r e n c e experiments t h a t i n i t i a t e d t o Highs = 3.O8 d.f. 1 s i g . between p .10 and p .05. (ii) ^ f o r p r o p o r t i o n o f s u b j e c t s i n no d i f f e r e n c e experiments and p r o p o r t i o n o f s u b j e c t s i n extreme d i f f e r e n c e experiments t h a t i n i t i a t e d t o Highs = 31.52 d.f. 1 s i g . beyond p .001. E f f e c t o f degree o f imbalance ( i ) 0C ^ f o r p r o p o r t i o n o f s u b j e c t s I n moderate d i f f e r e n c e experiments and p r o p o r t i o n o f s u b j e c t s i n extreme d i f f e r e n c e experiments t h a t i n i t i a t e d t o Highs = 14.63 d.f. 1 s i g . beyond .001. I n s p i t e o f the pressure toward h i g h t o low and low t o h i g h i n i t i a t i o n s due t o t h e way t h e booths were set up v i s a v i s one another, t h e r e s u l t s o f the f i r s t o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r exchange c l e a r l y support Hypothesis  1.  I n the  case o f the h i g h s , t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f moderate d i f f e r e n c e s between s u b j e c t s was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h an i n c r e a s e o f about 150% o f the h i g h - p o s i t i o n s u b j e c t s '  -50-  rate of i n i t i a t i n g t o f e l l o w h i g h - p o s i t i o n subjects while the i n t r o d u c t i o n of extreme d i f f e r e n c e s between s u b j e c t s was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h an i n c r e a s e o f more than 400% o f t h i s r a t e .  I n t h e case o f the lows, t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f  moderate d i f f e r e n c e s between s u b j e c t s was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h an i n c r e a s e o f 12% of the low-position subjects' rate o f i n i t i a t i n g t o high-position subjects w h i l e t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f extreme d i f f e r e n c e s between s u b j e c t s was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h an i n c r e a s e o f about 50% o f t h i s r a t e .  The f a c t t h a t t h e i n c r e a s e s a r e  g r e a t e r f o r t h e highs than f o r t h e lows i s not s u r p r i s i n g .  As a consequence  o f t h e pressure toward i n t e r net w e a l t h i n i t i a t i o n s due t o t h e way t h e booths were s e t up v i s a v i s one another, the h i g h - p o s i t i o n t o h i g h - p o s i t i o n i n i t i a t i o n base r a t e i s lower than t h e l e v e l t h a t would be expected by chance alone and t h e l o w - p o s i t i o n t o h i g h - p o s i t i o n i n i t i a t i o n base r a t e i s h i g h e r than t h e l e v e l t h a t would be expected by chance alone.  Thus i n t h e case o f  the h i g h s , t h e r e was a g r e a t e r percentage range ( i . e . , gap between t h e base r a t e f o r when the independent v a r i a b l e was s e t a t zero and 100$) across which the e f f e c t o f t h e independent v a r i a b l e c o u l d be observed. Hypothesis 2.  A c o l l e c t i v i t y w i l l s p l i t i n t o c l i q u e s as t h e members, through s u c c e s s i v e i n i t i a t i o n s , l e a r n w i t h which o t h e r members they can e n t e r i n t o exchange i n t e r a c t i o n s .  Hypothesis 3.  C l i q u e s o f members o f h i g h net w e a l t h w i l l emerge w i t h i n a c o l l e c t i v i t y before c l i q u e s o f members o f low n e t wealth.  Because t h e experimental  paradigm deals w i t h a f i x e d  resource  s i t u a t i o n , only a l i m i t e d number o f exchange t r a n s a c t i o n s can occur before the s u b j e c t s end up w i t h equal s i z e d p i l e s o f buttons i n f r o n t o f them. F o r  -51t h i s reason, s u b j e c t s were o n l y g i v e n seven o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r exchange. the number o f o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r exchange was  Since  l i m i t e d , however, hypotheses 2  and 3 c o u l d not be t e s t e d as f u l l y as would be d e s i r e d .  Given t h a t these  hypotheses assume l e a r n i n g e f f e c t s , i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e t o ask whether seven o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r exchange would a l l o w l e a r n i n g p r i n c i p l e s t o operate i n the way  argued.  The p o s i t i o n taken here i s t h a t , even i f seven o p p o r t u n i t i e s d i d  not a l l o w the p r o b a b i l i t i e s f o r i n t r a net w e a l t h l e v e l i n i t i a t i o n s t o r e a c h asymptotic v a l u e s , the sequence o f o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r exchange i s l o n g enough t o a l l o w the arguments t h a t the hypotheses are based on (see p. 25) t o be tested.  Hence, once the hypotheses have been d i r e c t l y t e s t e d , the arguments  t h a t the hypotheses are based on w i l l be t e s t e d too. I f hypotheses 2 and 3 are v a l i d , i n c r e a s e s i n the independent v a r i a b l e ( i . e . , the magnitude of the i n i t i a l net resource d i f f e r e n c e s between s u b j e c t s ) should be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e s i n low t o low i n i t i a t i o n r a t e s over the seven o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r exchange.  The corresponding i n c r e a s e s i n the  h i g h t o h i g h i n i t i a t i o n r a t e s over the seven o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r exchange would not be expected t o be as l a r g e s i n c e hypothesis  1 p r e d i c t e d t h a t the h i g h t o  high i n i t i a t i o n r a t e s would be h i g h even d u r i n g the f i r s t o p p o r t u n i t y exchange.  for  Note t h a t i n i t i a t i o n s r a t h e r than acceptances w i l l be looked  because an i n i t i a t i o n occurs t e m p o r a l l y p r i o r t o an acceptance and  at  the  d i s t r i b u t i o n o f acceptances t h a t occured d u r i n g each o p p o r t u n i t y f o r exchange may  have been as much the r e s u l t o f the r e s t r i c t i o n s on what could be o f f e r e d  or g i v e n i n r e t u r n  as the assumed l e a r n i n g p r i n c i p l e s .  Though the  r e s t r i c t i o n s on what c o u l d be o f f e r e d o r g i v e n i n r e t u r n would i n f l u e n c e the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f i n i t i a t i o n s too, t h i s i n f l u e n c e would only be apparent a f t e r s e v e r a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r exchange. The d i f f e r e n t d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f i n i t i a t i o n s f o r the f i r s t and  seventh  -52o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r exchange a r e r e p o r t e d i n Table 3Table 3.  I n t r a Wealth L e v e l I n i t i a t i o n s During t h e F i r s t and Seventh O p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r Exchange under Each Experimental C o n d i t i o n  N  First Opportunity For Exchange  Seventh Opportunity F o r Exchange  24*  17.4%**  39.1%**  Moderate i n i t i a l net resource d i f f e r e n c e s between s u b j e c t s 24  45.8%  70.8%  Extreme i n i t i a l net resource d i f f e r e n c e s between s u b j e c t s  32  90.3%  90.0%***  No i n i t i a l net resource d i f f e r e n c e s between s u b j e c t s  24  37.5%  41.6%  30.4%**  52.2%**  No i n i t i a l net resource d i f f e r e n c e s between s u b j e c t s High-to-High Initiations  Low-to-Low Initiations  Moderate i n i t i a l net resource d i f f e r e n c e s between s u b j e c t s 24 Extreme i n i t i a l net resource d i f f e r e n c e s between s u b j e c t s  32  9.4%  50.0%  "High t o h i g h " and "low t o low" terms p r o p e r l y apply o n l y t o t h e moderate and extreme d i f f e r e n c e s c o n d i t i o n s ( i . e . , i n t h e no d i f f e r e n c e s c o n d i t i o n , t h e h i g h t o h i g h i n i t i a t i o n s a r e h i g h - p o s i t i o n t o h i g h - p o s i t i o n i n i t i a t i o n s and the low t o low i n i t i a t i o n s a r e l o w - p o s i t i o n t o l o w - p o s i t i o n i n i t i a t i o n s . * N's c a l c u l a t e d on t h e b a s i s o f f o u r s u b j e c t s on p a r t i c u l a r net wealth l e v e l p e r experiment run. ** Base f o r % i s 1 l e s s than i n d i c a t e d N because 1 subject chose t o not make an i n i t i a t i o n d u r i n g t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y f o r exchange. *** Base f o r % i s 2 l e s s than i n d i c a t e d N because 2 s u b j e c t s chose t o not make i n i t i a t i o n s d u r i n g t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y f o r exchange.  Although t h e changes i n t h e no d i f f e r e n c e s c o n d i t i o n percentages, i n Table 3, were not p r e d i c t e d , t h e percentages f o r t h e seventh o p p o r t u n i t y f o r exchange were s t i l l below t h e f i f t y p e r cent l e v e l t h a t would be expected by  -53chance alone.  I n t h e cases o f t h e moderate and extreme d i f f e r e n c e s c o n d i t i o n s ,  a l l t h e changes a r e congruent w i t h t h e hypotheses.  The s m a l l changes i n t h e  h i g h t o h i g h i n i t i a t i o n r a t e s i n t h e extreme d i f f e r e n c e s c o n d i t i o n a r e presumably t h e consequence o f very h i g h f i r s t percentages  ( i . e . , i t can be  argued t h a t t h e emergence o f c l i q u e s composed o f highs was immediate i n t h i s condition).  The f a c t t h a t t h e moderate and extreme d i f f e r e n c e s low t o low  i n i t i a t i o n r a t e s d i d not r i s e h i g h e r t h a n around 50% I s presumably a r e f l e c t i o n o f t h e l i m i t e d number o f o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r exchange. reasonable t o conclude t h a t hypotheses r e p o r t e d i n Table 3.  I n a l l i t would seem  2 and 3 a r e supported by t h e d a t a  N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e arguments on which these  hypotheses  were based w i l l be i n v e s t i g a t e d . I n t h e l a s t c h a p t e r , i t was argued t h a t a l l t h e members o f c o l l e c t i v i t i e s which meet t h e scope c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e theory would tend t o i n i t i a t e t o t h e h i g h w e a l t h members d u r i n g t h e f i r s t o p p o r t u n i t y f o r exchange, but t h a t t h e low w e a l t h members would be l i k e l y t o make i n i t i a t i o n s t h a t a r e l e s s f a v o u r a b l e t o t h e h i g h w e a l t h members than t h e h i g h w e a l t h members when i n i t i a t i n g t o h i g h wealth members.  On t h e b a s i s o f these arguments i t was  then concluded t h a t t h e h i g h w e a l t h members would p o s i t i v e l y r e i n f o r c e i n i t i a t i o n s from one another by a c c e p t i n g them and n e g a t i v e l y r e i n f o r c e i n i t i a t i o n s from t h e low w e a l t h members by r e j e c t i n g them. F i r s t we w i l l i n v e s t i g a t e whether t h e lows d i d i n f a c t make i n i t i a t i o n s t h a t were l e s s f a v o u r a b l e t o t h e h i g h w e a l t h members than t h e highs when i n i t i a t i n g t o highs.  I f t h e I n i t i a t i o n s recorded f o r t h e t h r e e experimental  c o n d i t i o n s a r e coded a c c o r d i n g t o whether t h e i n i t i a t o r :  " o f f e r e d more than  requested", " o f f e r e d t h e same as requested" o r .."offered l e s s than requested", the r e s u l t s f o r t h e lows should be skewed toward t h e " o f f e r e d l e s s than requested" category when compared w i t h t h e r e s u l t s f o r t h e highs.  Moreover,  -54-  the degree o f skew should be g r e a t e r f o r t h e extreme d i f f e r e n c e s c o n d i t i o n than f o r the moderate d i f f e r e n c e s c o n d i t i o n .  The percentages o f i n i t i a t i o n s a g a i n s t  which t h i s p r e d i c t i o n can be checked a r e s e t out i n Table 4. Table 4.  I n i t i a t i o n s t o Highs under Each Experimental C o n d i t i o n : R e l a t i v e t o Requests*  Offers  Low-to-High I n i t i a t i o n s * *  High-to-High  Offered more than requested  Offered more than requested  Offered l e s s than requested  23.1% (9/24Ss)  20.5% (7/24Ss)  23.0% (ll/24Ss)  18.7% (9/24Ss)  17-9% (6/32Ss)  20.5% (8/32Ss)  Offered l e s s than requested***  No i n i t i a l n e t resource differences between s u b j e c t s  15.1% (7/24Ss)****  25.5% (1V24SS)  Moderate i n i t i a l net resource differences between s u b j e c t s  13.6% (6/24Ss)  4l.0% (l6/24Ss)  Extreme i n i t i a l net resource differences between s u b j e c t s  5.0? (3/32Ss;  44.6% (23/32Ss)  N 8 6  N88  N121  Initiations  m  N109  N179  * The d a t a f o r a l l seven o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r exchange have been pooled because t h e r e were no apparent t r e n d s over t h e seven o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r exchange. ** The terms "low t o h i g h " and "high t o h i g h " p r o p e r l y apply o n l y t o t h e moderate and extreme d i f f e r e n c e s c o n d i t i o n s ( i . e . , i n t h e no d i f f e r e n c e s c o n d i t i o n , t h e low t o h i g h i n i t i a t i o n s a r e l o w - p o s i t i o n t o h i g h - p o s i t i o n i n i t i a t i o n s and t h e h i g h t o h i g h i n i t i a t i o n s a r e h i g h - p o s i t i o n t o h i g h position initiations). *** The " o f f e r e d the same as requested" percentages a r e o m i t t e d f o r t h e sake of c l a r i t y . **** The numbers i n b r a c k e t s a r e t h e numbers o f s u b j e c t s who made 1 o r more o f f e r s o f t h i s s o r t ( i . e . , they i n d i c a t e t h e c o n s i s t e n c y o f t h e occurrence, across t h e i n d i v i d u a l s observed, o f the type o f behavior under s c r u t i n y . I t would seem reasonable t o conclude t h a t t h e d a t a presented i n Table 4 support t h e argument being i n v e s t i g a t e d .  On t h e one hand, t h e lows were  indeed l e s s l i k e l y than e i t h e r the l o w - p o s i t i o n s u b j e c t s i n the no d i f f e r e n c e s  -55c o n d i t i o n o r t h e highs t o o f f e r more than they requested.  On t h e o t h e r hand,  the lows were more l i k e l y than e i t h e r t h e h i g h - p o s i t i o n s u b j e c t s i n t h e no d i f f e r e n c e s c o n d i t i o n o r t h e highs t o o f f e r l e s s t h a n they were r e q u e s t i n g . Both o f these o b s e r v a t i o n s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e lows were, i n f a c t , more l i k e l y t o make i n i t i a t i o n s t h a t were l e s s f a v o u r a b l e t o t h e highs than t h e highs when i n i t i a t i n g t o the highs. Since t h e lows d i d not have t h e resources t o compete w i t h t h e highs f o r any l e n g t h o f time by o f f e r i n g more than they requested, t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y need not be seen as h a v i n g any importance f o r o u r t h e o r y .  The o n l y f a c t o r  t h a t c o u l d have been important, i n t h e l o n g r u n , was t h e impact t h a t acceptance and r e j e c t i o n had on t h e d i r e c t i o n o f i n i t i a t i o n s . second argument which u n d e r l i e s hypotheses  This i s the point of the  2 and 3 and r e q u i r e s i n v e s t i g a t i o n .  Hypotheses 2 and 3 were based on t h e argument t h a t t h e highs would n e g a t i v e l y r e i n f o r c e i n i t i a t i o n s from t h e lows.  T h i s argument i s e q u i v a l e n t  t o t h e one t h a t t h e r e should be a s t r o n g e r tendency t o change t h e t a r g e t o f i n i t i a t i o n a f t e r r e j e c t i o n than a f t e r acceptance.  A change i n t h e c h o i c e o f  net wealth l e v e l r a t h e r than a change i n t h e c h o i c e o f person i s p r e d i c t e d because s u b j e c t s on t h e same net w e a l t h l e v e l w i t h t h e same resource p r o f i l e s are considered t o be e q u i v a l e n t s t i m u l u s c o n d i t i o n s ( a f t e r t h e s t i m u l u s g e n e r a l i z a t i o n p r i n c i p l e i n operant psychology^).  Both t h e highs and t h e lows  should have changed net wealth l e v e l s i n i t i a t e d t o more o f t e n a f t e r having had i n i t i a t i o n s r e j e c t e d , than a f t e r having had i n i t i a t i o n s accepted. data r e q u i r e d t o check t h i s argument a r e s e t out i n Table 5.  The  -56-  Table 5.  Changes o f Net Wealth L e v e l I n i t i a t e d t o A f t e r Acceptance and A f t e r R e j e c t i o n Under the Moderate and Extreme D i f f e r e n c e s C o n d i t i o n s Last i n i t i a t i o n accepted  Moderate i n i t i a l net resource d i f f e r e n c e s between s u b j e c t s  40.2%  Extreme i n i t i a l net resource d i f f e r e n c e s between s u b j e c t s  27.0%  Last i n i t i a t i o n rejected  56.6% (N157)*  (N122) 42.6%  (N208)  (Nl65)  * S i n c e the d a t a p e r t a i n t o what the s u b j e c t s d i d a f t e r t h e outcome f o r t h e l a s t o p p o r t u n i t y f o r exchange, t h e r e are 7-1 = 6 o b s e r v a t i o n s per s u b j e c t . Note t h a t the d a t a f o r each experimental c o n d i t i o n have been p o o l e d , s i n c e t h e r e were no apparent d i f f e r e n c e s i n the d a t a f o r these o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r exchange. Note. I t i s not p o s s i b l e t o g i v e a simple i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e c o n s i s t e n c y o f t h e d a t a because when we e v a l u a t e both the n o t i o n o f p o s i t i v e reinforcement and the n o t i o n o f n e g a t i v e reinforcement both t h e s t a b i l i t y and change o f choice o f net wealth l e v e l i n i t i a t e d t o i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e outcomes f o r t h e immediately p r e c e d i n g operants has t o be taken I n t o account.  Again, i t would seem reasonable t o conclude t h a t t h e d a t a presented support t h e argument b e i n g checked out.  Subjects I n both the moderate and  extreme d i f f e r e n c e s c o n d i t i o n s were more l i k e l y t o change t h e i r c h o i c e o f l e v e l i n i t i a t e d t o i f t h e i r l a s t i n i t i a t i o n was r e j e c t e d t h a n i f i t was accepted.  The c l a i m t h a t the s u b j e c t s were o r i e n t i n g t o l e v e l s o f net w e a l t h  and not o t h e r s t i m u l u s f a c t o r s i s supported by the o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t both t h e highs and the lows tended t o d i r e c t t h e i r f i r s t i n i t i a t i o n s t o the highs (see Table 2, p. Hypothesis 4.  49).  The members o f each c l i q u e t h a t emerges w i t h i n a c o l l e c t i v i t y w i l l approve 'of one another more than they w i l l approve o f the other members o f the c o l l e c t i v i t y are not members o f t h e i r c l i q u e .  who  -57-  The argument t h a t l e d t o hypothesis 4 was based on a number o f assumptions concerning t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between reinforcement g e n e r a t i o n o f sentiments o f approval and d i s a p p r o v a l .  e f f e c t s and t h e  I t was assumed t h a t t h e  acceptance o f i n i t i a t i o n s r e i n f o r c e s p o s i t i v e sentiments toward t h e a c c e p t o r and t h a t r e j e c t i o n o f i n i t i a t i o n s r e i n f o r c e ? n e g a t i v e sentiments toward t h e rejector.  I n a d d i t i o n , i t was assumed t h a t t h e r e c e i p t o f an i n i t i a t i o n t h a t  can be accepted r e i n f o r c e s p o s i t i v e sentiments towards t h e i n i t i a t o r and t h a t e i t h e r t h e non r e c e i p t o f i n i t i a t i o n s o r t h e r e c e i p t o f i n i t i a t i o n s t h a t cannot be accepted r e i n f o r c e negative sentiments toward t h e i n i t i a t o r .  Furthermore,  i t was argued (on t h e b a s i s o f hypotheses 1,2 and 3) t h a t t h e h i g h e s t r a t e s o f r e j e c t i o n (and, c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y , t h e lowest r a t e s o f acceptance) would be experienced  by low wealth members when they a r e i n i t i a t i n g t o h i g h  wealth  members and t h a t t h e h i g h e s t r a t e s o f acceptance (and, c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y , t h e lowest r a t e s o f r e j e c t i o n ) would occur between members on t h e same n e t wealth levels.  I f a l l o f these assumptions and arguments a r e sound, t h e post  experimental  approve/disapprove  votes t h a t s u b j e c t s cast toward one another  (see appendix V) i n t h e second and t h i r d s e t s o f experiments should have been d i s t r i b u t e d i n t h e manner p r e d i c t e d by hypothesis  4.  The f i r s t step toward t e s t i n g hypothesis 4, then, w i l l be t h a t o f a s c e r t a i n i n g whether t h e acceptance and r e j e c t i o n r a t e s were as assumed. data r e p o r t e d i n Table 6 i n d i c a t e t h e r a t e s o f i n t e r and i n t r a net w e a l t h l e v e l acceptance r a t e s (and, corresponding  rejection rates).  The  -58-  Table 6.  I n t e r and I n t r a Net Wealth L e v e l I n i t i a t i o n s Accepted under Each Experimental C o n d i t i o n  % Acceptances*  No I n i t i a l Net Resource D i f f e r e n c e s Between Subjects  Moderate I n i t i a l Net Resource Differences Between Subjects  Extreme I n i t i a l Net Resource Differences Between Subjects  N**  High-Position-toHigh-Position Initiations***  69.2%  78  Low-Pos i t i o n - t oLow-Position Initiations  72.8  77  High-Position-toLow-Position Initiations  54.3  83  Low-PosIt i o n - t oHigh-Position Initiations  50.0  86  High-to-High Initiations  59.6  109  Low-to-Low Initiations  67.5  77  High-to-Low Initiations  45.7  57  Low-to-High Initiations  46.6  P.R  High-to-High Initiations  68.2  179  Low-to-Low Initiations  77.8  99  High-to-Low Initiations  31.7  41  Low-to-High Initiations  31.4  121  00  Complementary percentages equal t h e percentages o f i n i t i a t i o n s r e j e c t e d . Since s u b j e c t s were f r e e t o decide t o which s u b j e c t s they would d i r e c t t h e i r i n i t i a t i o n s , t h e N's were f r e e t o vary. H i g h - p o s i t i o n s u b j e c t s a r e those s u b j e c t s t h a t s a t a t t h e same booths as the highs and l o w - p o s i t i o n s u b j e c t s a r e those s u b j e c t s t h a t s a t a t t h e same booths as t h e lows.  A l l t h e percentages f o r t h e moderate and extreme d i f f e r e n c e s c o n d i t i o n s appear t o be i n l i n e w i t h t h e assumptions concerning t h e r e l e v a n t reinforcement t h a t underly hypothesis  4.  The percentages f o r t h e no d i f f e r e n c e s c o n d i t i o n ,  however,, are not q u i t e as expected. be s i m i l a r .  effects  These percentages should, presumably, a l l  The d i s c r e p a n c i e s a r e due t o t h e r e s u l t s o f t h r e e o f t h e s i x  experiments t h a t were r u n under t h e no d i f f e r e n c e s c o n d i t i o n .  F o r some n o n -  obvious reason, c l i q u e s seemed t o emerge among t h e I,J,M and N s u b j e c t s and among t h e G,H,K and L s u b j e c t s i n these experiments.  I n contrast t o t h i s  v a r i a b i l i t y i n t h e p a t t e r n s o f i n t e r a c t i o n i n t h e no d i f f e r e n c e s experiments, the v a r i a b i l i t y i n t h e p a t t e r n s o f i n t e r a c t i o n s i n t h e extreme d i f f e r e n c e s experiments was minimal. ^ I n s p i t e o f t h e anomalies i n t h e d a t a f o r t h e no d i f f e r e n c e s experiments, i t should be noted t h a t t h e p r e d i c t e d p a t t e r n o f percentages i s stronger i n the extreme d i f f e r e n c e d a t a than i n t h e moderate d i f f e r e n c e s data. The next step toward t e s t i n g hypothesis  4 i s that o f ascertaining  whether t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f approve/disapprove v o t e s r e f l e c t t h e p a t t e r n o f r e s u l t s i n Table 6:  t h a t i s , whether t h e highest r a t e s o f approval and t h e  lowest r a t e s o f d i s a p p r o v a l occurred between s u b j e c t s on t h e same net w e a l t h levels.  The r e s u l t s obtained a r e s e t out i n Table 7.  -60Table 7.  Post Experimental "Approve" and "Disapprove" Votes D i r e c t e d Toward F e l l o w Net Wealth L e v e l S u b j e c t s  No I n i t i a l Net Resource D i f f e r e n c e s between Subjects 22 H i g h - P o s i t i o n s u b j e c t s * d i r e c t e d  48.9% (N45) approve votes and 47.3% (N36) disapprove votes toward fellow High-Position subjects  20 L o w - P o s i t i o n s u b j e c t s d i r e c t e d  40.0% (N45) approve votes and 56.5% (N23) disapprove v o t e s toward f e l l o w Low-Position subjects  Moderate I n i t i a l Net Resource D i f f e r e n c e s between S u b j e c t s 23 Highs d i r e c t e d  52.4% (N42) approve votes and 42.8% (N28) disapprove votes toward f e l l o w Highs  21 Lows d i r e c t e d  57-2% (N42) approve votes and 34.4% (N32) disapprove votes toward f e l l o w Lows  Extreme I n i t i a l Net Resource D i f f e r e n c e s between Subjects 27 Highs d i r e c t e d  71.2% 42.0%  (N59) approve votes and (N31) disapprove votes toward f e l l o w Highs  27 Lows d i r e c t e d  75.6% 21.0%  (N45) approve votes and (N43) disapprove votes toward f e l l o w Lows  * ( i ) h i g h - p o s i t i o n s u b j e c t s are those t h a t s a t a t t h e same booths as t h e highs and l o w - p o s i t i o n s u b j e c t s are those t h a t s a t a t t h e same booths as t h e lows. (ii)  2/24 h i g h - p o s i t i o n and 4/24 l o w - p o s i t i o n s u b j e c t s i n t h e n o - i n i t i a l differences-between-subject s c o n d i t i o n , 1/24 highs and 3/24 lows i n t h e moderate-differences c o n d i t i o n and 5/32 highs and 5/32 lows i n t h e extreme-differences c o n d i t i o n d i d not bother ( o r were not a b l e ) t o i n d i c a t e approval o r d i s a p p r o v a l f o r any o f t h e o t h e r s u b j e c t s i n t h e i r c o l l e c t i v i t y . Those s u b j e c t s t h a t d i d i n d i c a t e approval o r d i s a p p r o v a l toward other s u b j e c t s g e n e r a l l y l i m i t e d themselves t o 2 o r 3 o f t h e 7 other s u b j e c t s i n t h e i r c o l l e c t i v i t y .  -61The percentages i n Table 7 appear t o be much as p r e d i c t e d by 4.  The o n l y d i s c r e p a n c i e s would seem t o be i n the percentages  f o r t h e low-  p o s i t i o n s u b j e c t s where the f i g u r e s are somewhat lower than the 50% would be expected on the b a s i s o f chance alone. can be taken another step.  Hypothesis  l e v e l that  The a n a l y s i s , n e v e r t h e l e s s ,  Since the approve/disapprove  votes are assumed t o  be generated through a c t u a l i n t e r a c t i o n o r contact between s u b j e c t s , t h e p a t t e r n o f c o n t a c t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h both approve and disapprove votes should I f the theory u n d e r l y i n g hypothesis 4 i s sound, s u b j e c t s should  be looked a t .  have been most l i k e l y t o d i r e c t votes toward s u b j e c t s w i t h whom they had  had  actual contact. According t o the t h e o r y , contact between s u b j e c t s can be o f two  sorts.  F i r s t t h e r e are the i n i t i a t i o n s t h a t ego makes, and second t h e r e are t h e i n i t i a t i o n s t h a t ego r e c e i v e s . rejections. importance  Both s o r t s o f contact i n v o l v e acceptances  and  The theory does not i n c l u d e a r a t i o n a l e f o r w e i g h t i n g t h e o f t h e two s o r t s o f c o n t a c t , and so ego i s p r e d i c t e d t o have been  more l i k e l y t o approve than disapprove o f a l t e r i f t h e balance between a l l the i n i t i a t i o n s accepted and a l l the i n i t i a t i o n s r e j e c t e d i s i n f a v o u r o f t h e i n i t i a t i o n s accepted and v i c e v e r s a .  To t e s t t h i s p a r t o f the t h e o r y , a l l the  p a i r s o f s u b j e c t s t h a t had any contact a t a l l w i l l be looked a t and the h i s t o r i e s o f i n t e r a c t i o n s between them w i l l be c l a s s i f i e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e percentage o f i n i t i a t i o n s accepted and whether they were a s s o c i a t e d w i t h an approve vote o r a disapprove vote.  The r e s u l t s are set out i n Table 8.  The  v e r t i c a l percentages i n d i c a t e the way the votes t h a t were a c t u a l l y c a s t were d i s t r i b u t e d across the d i f f e r e n t acceptance l e v e l s w h i l e the h o r i z o n t a l percentages i n d i c a t e the l i k e l i h o o d o f a p p r o v a l votes and d i s a p p r o v a l being a s s o c i a t e d w i t h h i s t o r i e s o f I n t e r a c t i o n which f a l l i n t o t h e d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s o f acceptance.  Table 8. D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Approval and D i s a p p r o v a l Votes Across D i f f e r e n t L e v e l s o f Acceptance* Approval Votes (N274) D i s t r i b u t i o n according t o percentage o f i n i t i a t i o n s accepted i n h i s t o % ries of interof a l l action histories of i n t e r a c t i o n charact e r i z e d by acceptance l e v e l and a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a p p r o v a l votes % of a l l Initiations between r a t e r and r a t e d accepted  50-100% 0-49%  D i s a p p r o v a l Votes (N197) D i s t r i b u t i o n according t o percentage o f i n i t i a t i o n s accepted i n h i s t o % ries of interof a l l action histories of i n t e r a c t i o n charact e r i z e d by a c ceptance l e v e l and a s s o c i a t e d w i t h d i s a p p r o v a l votes  70.45% 54.65%  34.00%  17.15%  51.80%  19.15% No h i s t o r i e s o f interactions between r a t e r and r a t e d i . e . , no i n i t i a t i o n s e i t h e r accepted or rejected  12.40%  18.45%  N 363**  41.60%  N 245  3.92%  N 7140  14.20% 4.70%  * The data f o r the no, moderate and extreme d i f f e r e n c e s experiments were pooled because t h e r e were no apparent d i f f e r e n c e s i n the p a t t e r n s o f contact a s s o c i a t e d w i t h e i t h e r t h e approve o r disapprove generated under the t h r e e c o n d i t i o n s . * The column o f percentages f o r i n t e r a c t i o n sequences t h a t were not a s s o c i a t e d w i t h e i t h e r an approve o r a disapprove vote has been omitted f o r the sake o f c l a r i t y .  -63The r e s u l t s set out i n Table 8 appear t o be i n l i n e w i t h t h e t h e o r y . LxDoking a t t h e v e r t i c a l percentages, 70.45% o f the approve v o t e s f a l l i n t h e • 50-100% acceptance l e v e l and 51.80% o f t h e disapprove v o t e s f a l l i n the 0-49% acceptance l e v e l .  Only 12.40% o f t h e approve votes and 14.20% o f t h e  disapprove votes are not a s s o c i a t e d w i t h contact between the r a t e r s and r a t e d . Looking a t the h o r i z o n t a l percentages, 54.65% o f a l l the i n t e r a c t i o n sequences t h a t f a l l on the 50-100% acceptance l e v e l are a s s o c i a t e d w i t h an approve v o t e w h i l e 41.60% o f a l l t h e h i s t o r i e s o f i n t e r a c t i o n t h a t f a l l on the 0-49% acceptance l e v e l are a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a disapprove v o t e . The t h e o r y , presented i n chapter I I , p r e d i c t s t h e g e n e r a t i o n o f approval o r d i s a p p r o v a l on the b a s i s o f the outcomes o f a l l the i n i t i a t i o n s t h a t f l o w between ego and a l t e r .  That i s , t h e t h e o r y t a k e s i n t o account b o t h  the i n i t i a t i o n s made by ego and the i n i t i a t i o n s made by a l t e r .  The s i g n i f i c a n c e  o f the element o f the d a t a concerning the i n i t i a t i o n s t h a t a l t e r makes might be. questioned.  I t can be noted, however, t h a t t h i s element o f t h e d a t a d i d  i n c r e a s e the theory's a b i l i t y t o p r e d i c t a p p r o v a l and d i s a p p r o v a l v o t e s . I f j u s t the i n i t i a t i o n s t h a t ego made are taken i n t o account, o n l y 65.25% o f a l l the h i s t o r i e s o f i n t e r a c t i o n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h approve votes f a l l i n t o the 501  100% acceptance category and o n l y 45.65% o f a l l the h i s t o r i e s o f i n t e r a c t i o n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h disapprove votes f a l l i n t o the 0-49% acceptance category.  Evaluation o f Results The data r e p o r t e d i n the f i r s t s e c t i o n o f t h i s chapter were c o l l e c t e d t o t e s t t h e theory advanced i n chapter I I . •  i n an o v e r a l l sense.  These d a t a w i l l now be e v a l u a t e d  I n the main, percentage d i f f e r e n c e s have been r e l i e d  upon because i t can be argued t h a t s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s o f s i g n i f i c a n c e are not  \  i  j t  -64-  a p p l i c a b l e s i n c e up t o seven observations o f each s u b j e c t were recorded.  That  i s , i t can be argued t h a t the s u b j e c t s ' s u c c e s s i v e i n i t i a t i o n s would have been r e l a t e d so t h a t the o b s e r v a t i o n s made a r e not independent.  Interdependence  among the d a t a would, o f course, l e a d t o a l e s s than c o n s e r v a t i v e e v a l u a t i o n o f r e s u l t s because the power o f s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s o f s i g n i f i c a n c e depends upon the number o f o b s e r v a t i o n s made and interdependence among o b s e r v a t i o n s means t h a t the l a t t e r observations do not c o n t r i b u t e as much i n f o r m a t i o n as t h e f i r s t observations made. The problem faced i n t h i s s e c t i o n i s t h a t o f d e c i d i n g whether o r not the data are s u f f i c i e n t l y r e l i a b l e t o permit c o n c l u s i o n s concerning  the  g e n e r a l v a l i d i t y o f the theory. The d a t a f o r t h e f i r s t o p p o r t u n i t y (see T a b l e 2 , p. 4 9 ) a r e c e r t a i n l y w e l l i n l i n e w i t h the e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t b o t h highs and lows would begin by i n i t i a t i n g t o the h i g h s . d i f f i c u l t t o assess.  The s t r e n g t h o f the remaining d a t a , however, i s more  The main d i f f i c u l t i e s would seem t o stem from the  l i m i t e d number o f o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r exchange.  Although t h e d a t a c l e a r l y  i n d i c a t e t h a t a h i g h r a t e o f i n t e r a c t i o n between the highs q u i c k l y emerges, i t has t o be argued t h a t the i n t e r a c t i o n sequences are h a r d l y l o n g enough f o r comparable r a t e s t o emerge between the lows (see Table 3 , p. 5 2 ) .  Yet i t can  a l s o be argued t h a t the g r e a t e r tendency f o r the lows t o o f f e r fewer buttons than they request when I n i t i a t i n g t o highs (see Table 4 , p. 5 4 ) and  the  stronger tendency f o r s u b j e c t s t o change t h e i r t a r g e t o f i n i t i a t i o n a f t e r r e j e c t i o n than a f t e r acceptance (see Table 5 , p. 5 6 ) > suggest t h a t t h e p r e d i c t i o n r e g a r d i n g the formation o f c l i q u e s o f lows would be c o r r e c t i n the long run. The data t h a t was advanced as being r e l e v a n t t o the p r e d i c t i o n s concerning sentiments o f approval and d i s a p p r o v a l are g e n e r a l l y i n l i n e w i t h  -65the p r e d i c t i o n s .  Indeed, I t might be f e l t t h a t t h e d a t a appear s t r o n g e r t h a n  might have been expected g i v e n t h a t t h e h i s t o r i e s o f I n t e r a c t i o n were generated by only seven o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r exchange ( i . e . , a p o s s i b l e o f 14 exchanges s i n c e t h e experimental paradigm a l l o w s ago t o r e c e i v e i n i t i a t i o n s a t t h e same time as he i n i t i a t e s t o one o f t h e other s u b j e c t s ) :  the f a c t that subjects  were not asked t o i n d i c a t e t h e i n t e n s i t y o f t h e i r approval o r d i s a p p r o v a l may account f o r t h i s . The f a c t t h a t t h e r e a r e c l e a r l y d e t e c t a b l e p a t t e r n s throughout t h e d a t a f o r each set o f experiments, coupled w i t h t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p r e d i c t e d d i f f e r e n c e s a r e g r e a t e r between t h e no and extreme d i f f e r e n c e s c o n d i t i o n s than between t h e no and moderate d i f f e r e n c e s c o n d i t i o n s would seem t o j u s t i f y a good d e a l o f confidence i n t h e theory s e t out i n chapter I I .  I t might a l s o be  claimed t h a t t h i s confidence would j u s t i f y t h e b e l i e f t h a t t h e theory advanced c o n s t i t u t e s an advance on t h e L e i k et a l f o r m u l a t i o n t h a t was d i s c u s s e d i n chapter I . Despite t h i s confidence, however, I t has t o be admitted t h a t t h e theory c o u l d stand more severe t e s t i n g .  The r e s e a r c h d e s i g n , f o r example,  c o u l d be m o d i f i e d t o a l l o w more extended i n t e r a c t i o n sequences.  T h i s might be  achieved e i t h e r by g i v i n g t h e s u b j e c t s more buttons a t t h e s t a r t o f t h e experiment, o r by imposing s m a l l e r l i m i t s on t h e s i z e o f o f f e r s t h a t can be made so t h a t each subject has t o enter i n t o a g r e a t e r number o f exchanges before he has two equal p i l e s i n f r o n t o f him.  I t might a l s o be achieved by  running the same c o l l e c t i v i t y through a s e r i e s o f s e s s i o n s i n which t h e members begin each s e s s i o n w i t h f r e s h s e t s o f resources t h a t a r e t h e same as they had i n the f i r s t session.  The l a s t p o s s i b i l i t y would, o f course, imply c o n t i n u a l  i n j e c t i o n o f new resources i n t o t h e s i t u a t i o n and would c a l l f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n of scope c o n d i t i o n 3 i n t h e theory. One o f t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g the f o r m u l a t i o n o f t h e r e s e a r c h  -66-  d e s i g n d e s c r i b e d i n chapter I I I was a d e s i r e t o advance a paradigm t h a t c o u l d be used as t h e b a s i s f o r a s e r i e s o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n s .  The r e s e a r c h d e s i g n  advanced meets t h i s o b j e c t i v e . Besides t h e suggestions made i n t h e l a s t paragraph, a number o f d i f f e r e n t experiments c o u l d be r u n w i t h p r o f i t .  Future  work t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e consequences o f more extreme i n i t i a l net r e s o u r c e d i f f e r e n c e between s u b j e c t s would be worthwhile.  There I s reason t o t h i n k  t h a t t h e t h e o r y w i l l break down i f t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e n e t w e a l t h l e v e l s i s too great.  As was p o i n t e d out i n chapter I I when hypothesis 2 was advanced,  at some p o i n t t h e lows may p e r s i s t i n running very h i g h r i s k f o r h i g h g a i n so t h a t c l i q u e s o f lows may never form.  I n a d d i t i o n , t h e hypotheses ( e s p e c i a l l y  hypothesis 3 about t h e o r d e r i n which c l i q u e s emerge) should be r e t e s t e d by running experiments w i t h d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f resources t h a t i n v o l v e more than two net w e a l t h l e v e l s .  FOOTNOTES  "'"Subjects were s o l i c i t e d from a l l f i r s t and second y e a r , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1970/71 Chemistry c l a s s e s . The experimenter a t t e n d e d a l e c t u r e s e s s i o n f o r each c l a s s and asked f o r v o l u n t e e r s . The s t u d e n t s were t o l d : "...The experiment t h a t you a r e b e i n g asked t o t a k e p a r t i n i n v o l v e s a type o f game s i t u a t i o n . You w i l l s i t around a t a b l e w i t h seven o t h e r v o l u n t e e r s and engage i n a type o f game. There a r e no n a s t y e x p e r i e n c e s - no e l e c t r i c shocks, e t c . At t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e experiment, t h e experimenter w i l l f u l l y d i s c u s s t h e t h e o r y back o f the experiment and the problems i n v o l v e d i n r u n n i n g such experiments. The people who have t a k e n p a r t i n these experiments have s a i d t h a t they enjoyed the experience. Each experiment t a k e s l e s s t h a n one hour - t h a t i s , you w i l l be asked t o come t o t h e S m a l l Groups Laboratory f o r one one-hour s e s s i o n . " Those students who i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y wanted t o t a k e p a r t i n an experiment ( u s u a l l y about 10% o f t h e c l a s s ) were g i v e n t i m e t a b l e s so t h a t they c o u l d i n d i c a t e a t which time they would be f r e e t o come t o the S m a l l Groups L a b o r a t o r y . V o l u n t e e r s were a l s o asked t o put t h e i r telephone numbers on the t i m e t a b l e so t h a t the experimenter c o u l d l e t them know what time he would l i k e them t o come. F o r each experiment, n i n e v o l u n t e e r s were c o n t a c t e d and asked t o come a t an appointed time. G e n e r a l l y at l e a s t e i g h t would remember t o do so. O c c a s i o n a l l y , however, o n l y seven would show up i n which case the experimenter would f i n d a s u b s t i t u t e v o l u n t e e r i n a lounge b e s i d e a l e c t u r e h a l l I n the same b u i l d i n g as t h a t i n which t h e Small Groups L a b o r a t o r y i s s i t u a t e d . I n a l l some 240 v o l u n t e e r s were used i n p i l o t experiments and 160 were used i n the experiments r e p o r t e d here. The main d i f f i c u l t y encountered d u r i n g the p i l o t stage concerned t h e problem o f g e t t i n g a set o f i n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t were c l e a r enough t o be q u i c k l y a s s i m i l a t e d by a l l the members I n a c o l l e c t i v i t y . 2 There were not enough s u b j e c t s t o r u n set. E i g h t experiments were r u n i n t h e t h i r d experiments focused on extreme d i f f e r e n c e s i n and the experimenter f e l t t h a t experiments i n i n t e r e s t i n g from a t h e o r e t i c a l p o i n t o f view.  8 o r more experiments i n each s e t because the t h i r d set o f the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s o u r c e s t h i s c o n d i t i o n might be the most  o  See scope c o n d i t i o n 6. Each s u b j e c t ' s l i m i t was s e t at l / 2 0 t h o f the number o f buttons t h a t was i n h i s l a r g e s t p i l e t o b e g i n w i t h . Hence, i n the c o n t r o l experiments a l l the s u b j e c t s had l i m i t s o f 30, i n s e t 2 t h e highs had l i m i t s o f 35 and the lows had l i m i t s o f 25 and i n s e t 3 the highs had l i m i t s of 40 and the lows had l i m i t s o f 20. See R.L. Burgess and R.L. Akers, Are operant p r i n c i p l e s t a u t o l o g i c a l ? P s y c h o l o g i c a l Record 16 (1966), pp. 305-312. P. 311, "2.b.2. Law o f G e n e r a l i z a t i o n Type I I : Whenever a s t i m u l u s a c q u i r e s c o n d i t i o n e d r e i n f o r c i n g p r o p e r t i e s , then o t h e r s t i m u l i w i l l t a k e on r e i n f o r c i n g p r o p e r t i e s t o t h e extent t h a t they are s i m i l a r t o the o r i g i n a l c o n d i t i o n e d r e i n f o r c e r . "  -68-  ~See appendix X, A:  R e s u l t s f o r experiments 3 , 4 and 5.  ^E.g., t h e numbers o f acceptances i n the h i g h t o low i n i t i a t i o n s f o r each o f the e i g h t experiments i n the extreme d i f f e r e n c e s c o n d i t i o n were: 16, 16, 17, 14, 1 6 , 16, 1 2 , 17. 7 C.f. When j u s t t h e i n i t i a t i o n s t h a t a l t e r made a r e t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t , o n l y 61.00% o f a l l t h e h i s t o r i e s o f i n t e r a c t i o n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h approve v o t e s would f a l l i n the 50-100% acceptance category and o n l y 37-60% o f a l l t h e h i s t o r i e s o f i n t e r a c t i o n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h disapprove v o t e s would f a l l i n t h e 0-49% acceptance c a t e g o r y .  CHAPTER V A WIDER CONTEXT Preceding chapters have been devoted t o an i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between:  the d i s t r i b u t i o n of resources, the formation o f  c l i q u e s and t h e g e n e r a t i o n o f sentiments o f a p p r o v a l and d i s a p p r o v a l i n experimental c o l l e c t i v i t i e s .  T h i s f i n a l chapter w i l l d e a l w i t h t h e problem  o f p l a c i n g t h e work r e p o r t e d i n t o t h e broader context o f t h e s o c i o l o g y o f social stratification  i n general.  p o i n t should be understood.  But before t h i s problem i s broached, one  There w i l l be no attempt t o g e n e r a l i z e from t h e  f i n d i n g s r e p o r t e d i n chapter I V t o n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g c o l l e c t i v i t i e s .  The  l a b o r a t o r y experiments d e s c r i b e d i n chapter I I I were s p e c i f i c a l l y designed t o t e s t t h e hypotheses s e t out i n chapter I I and t h e d a t a t h a t r e s u l t e d a r e not r e l e v a n t t o anything but these hypotheses." " 1  What w i l l be attempted  isa  comparison between these hypotheses and recorded o b s e r v a t i o n s o f n a t u r a l l y occurring c o l l e c t i v i t i e s .  To the degree t h a t these n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g  c o l l e c t i v i t i e s can be seen as being c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t h e scope c o n d i t i o n s o f the theory presented i n chapter I I , these o b s e r v a t i o n s can be taken as f u r t h e r data a g a i n s t which t h e hypotheses can be t e s t e d .  There i s no i n t e n t i o n ,  however, t o push t h e c l a i m t h a t a l l t h e scope c o n d i t i o n s a r e met by a l l t h e n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g c o l l e c t i v i t i e s t h a t have been looked a t .  What i s being  suggested i s t h a t comparison between t h e hypotheses and t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s t h a t have been made o f these n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g c o l l e c t i v i t i e s may l e a d t o a b e t t e r understanding o f t h e range o f phenomena t o which t h e theory e i t h e r i s , o r c o u l d be made, r e l e v a n t . The s t r a t e g y t h a t w i l l be adopted i s t h a t o f f i r s t c o n s i d e r i n g how  -70-  h y p o t h e t i c a l c o l l e c t i v i t i e s would f u n c t i o n i f they met t h e scope c o n d i t i o n s o f the theory and then comparing these c o n c l u s i o n s w i t h r e p o r t e d o b s e r v a t i o n s o f n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g c o l l e c t i v i t i e s a l s o meeting these c o n d i t i o n s . The c l i q u e s p r e d i c t e d by t h e t h e o r y can be c o n c i s e l y d e s c r i b e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g way:  ( i ) t h e members i n each c l i q u e have s i m i l a r n e t w e a l t h l e v e l s  ( i . e . , t h e c l i q u e s can be ordered i n terms o f t h e mean net w e a l t h l e v e l s o f t h e i r members), and ( i i )  t h e members o f each c l i q u e approve o f one another  more than they approve o f t h e members o f other c l i q u e s i n t h e i r c o l l e c t i v i t y . I t i s a f a c t t h a t n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g groups have been d e s c r i b e d i n v e r y s i m i l a r terms.  F o r example, S o r o k i n has w r i t t e n about n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g  groups which he c a l l s s o c i a l c l a s s e s t h a t a r e : "...(1) l e g a l l y open but a c t u a l l y semi-closed; (2) normal; (3) s o l i d a r y ; (4) a n t a g o n i s t i c t o c e r t a i n o t h e r groups ( s o c i a l classes.) o f t h e same g e n e r a l n a t u r e , X; (5) p a r t l y o r g a n i z e d but mainly q u a s i - o r g a n i z e d ; (6) p a r t l y aware o f I t s own u n i t y and e x i s t e n c e and p a r t l y not; (7) c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e Western s o c i e t y o f t h e e i g h t e e n t h , n i n e t e e n t h , and t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r i e s ; (8) a multibonded group bound t o g e t h e r by two unibonded t i e s - o c c u p a t i o n a l and economic (both taken i n t h e i r broad sense) and one bond o f s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n i n t h e sense o f t h e t o t a l i t y o f i t s e s s e n t i a l r i g h t s and d u t i e s as contrasted with the e s s e n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t r i g h t s and d u t i e s o f o t h e r groups ( s o c i a l c l a s s e s ) o f t h e same g e n e r a l n a t u r e , X...."2 And Mayer and Buckley have w r i t t e n about s o c i a l c l a s s e s i n t h e f o l l o w i n g way: " . . . i n a c l a s s system, t h e s o c i a l h i e r a r c h y i s based p r i m a r i l y upon d i f f e r e n c e s I n monetary wealth and income. S o c i a l c l a s s e s a r e not s h a r p l y marked o f f from each o t h e r , n o r a r e they demarcated by t a n g i b l e boundaries. U n l i k e e s t a t e s , they have no l e g a l s t a n d i n g , i n d i v i d u a l s o f a l l c l a s s e s being i n p r i n c i p l e equal before t h e law. Consequently t h e r e a r e no l e g a l r e s t r a i n t s on the movement o f i n d i v i d u a l s and f a m i l i e s from one c l a s s t o another. The same i s t r u e o f i n t e r m a r r i a g e which, w h i l e i t may be frowned upon and i n f o r m a l l y discouraged, i s not u s u a l l y prevented by law o r Insuperable s o c i a l p r e s s u r e s . U n l i k e c a s t e s ,  -71s o c i a l c l a s s e s are not n e c e s s a r i l y organized, c l o s e d s o c i a l groups. Rather, they are aggregates of persons with s i m i l a r amounts o f wealth and property and s i m i l a r sources o f income. Nevertheless, they may be a n a l y t i c a l l y separated i n t o s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t subgroups o r subcultures i n terms o f such c r i t e r i a as i n t e r a c t i o n p a t t e r n s , p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s , and l i f e s t y l e s . In s o c i e t i e s marked by a c l a s s system the d i f f e r e n c e s i n wealth and income are expressed i n d i f f e r e n t ways o f l i f e : p a t t e r n s o f consumption, types o f education, speech, manners, d r e s s , t a s t e s and other c u l t u r a l a t t r i b u t e s . In t u r n , these d i f f e r e n c e s g i v e r i s e t o the formation o f s t a t u s groups. These are i n f o r m a l s o c i a l groups whose members view each other as equals because they share common understandings - as expressed i n s i m i l a r a t t i t u d e s and s i m i l a r modes o f behavior - and who t r e a t o r regard o u t s i d e r s as s o c i a l s u p e r i o r s or i n f e r i o r s . Thus i n a c l a s s s o c i e t y t h e r e develops a h i e r a r c h y o f status groups that i s not i d e n t i c a l with the h i e r a r c h y o f economic c l a s s e s There i s a considerable amount o f movement up and down the c l a s s and status h i e r a r c h i e s . Although the i n d i v i d u a l a c q u i r e s h i s i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n at b i r t h , a s c r i p t i o n does not n e c e s s a r i l y determine h i s l a t e r s o c i a l rank, which can be changed through the a c q u i s i t i o n o r l o s s o f wealth and other attainments. As a r e s u l t , c l a s s s o c i e t i e s are apt to be h i g h l y competitive and f l u i d , s i n c e i n d i v i d u a l s and f a m i l i e s may compete f o r wealth and s o c i a l p o s i t i o n on the b a s i s o f p e r s o n a l q u a l i t i e s and achievements...."3  Obviously s o c i a l c l a s s e s are more complex than the c l i q u e s d e s c r i b e d here:  f o r i n s t a n c e , both Sorokin and Mayer and Buckley t a l k about  such as " r i g h t s " and " d u t i e s " . to  factors  Yet i t would seem that the core c r i t e r i a used  d e f i n e s o c i a l c l a s s e s are the c r i t e r i a t h a t we have used t o d e f i n e c l i q u e s . Because wealth dimensions are valued by a l l the members o f a  c o l l e c t i v i t y i t can be assumed t h a t every member o f the c o l l e c t i v i t y would l i k e to have a h i g h net wealth l e v e l , which i s not t o say t h a t those members of the c o l l e c t i v i t y who do not belong t o c l i q u e s o f h i g h mean net wealth l e v e l s w i l l l i k e or approve o f the members o f the c o l l e c t i v i t y who do.  In  -72f a c t , the theory  suggests t h a t respect f o r the possession  sentiments o f approval w i l l be orthogonally r e l a t e d .  o f resources  and  I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g that  an i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h i s i s s u e i n a n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g s i t u a t i o n ^ found t h a t respect was  a p o s i t i v e f u n c t i o n o f the occupational  person and a negative  f u n c t i o n of the o c c u p a t i o n a l  and t h a t f r i e n d s h i p was  status o f the  stimulus  status o f the respondent  an i n v e r s e f u n c t i o n of the d i f f e r e n c e i n s t a t u s  between the person and the respondent. According  t o the theory, the p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d i n exchange i n t e r a c t i o n s ,  i n a c o l l e c t i v i t y which meets the scope c o n d i t i o n s , w i l l tend t o have: (i)  resource  dimension l e v e l p r o f i l e s that complement one another, and ( i i )  s i m i l a r net wealth l e v e l s because sequences of exchanges w i l l only occur when r e c i p r o c a l b e n e f i t s are r e a l i z e d during each exchange i n t e r a c t i o n .  I f the  theory a p p l i e s t o n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g c o l l e c t i v i t i e s , only c l i q u e s that i n d i v i d u a l s o f s i m i l a r net wealth l e v e l s w i l l be observed.  The  involve  literature  5 on  'choice o f best f r i e n d * , as i t happens, s t r o n g l y suggests that people  choose people of s i m i l a r economic status t o themselves as f r i e n d s .  In f a c t ,  Kahl and Davis^ c l a i m t h a t : "The evidence i s c l e a r , persons o f s i m i l a r p r e s t i g e are l i k e l y t o a s s o c i a t e with one another i n those r e c r e a t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n s where f r e e choice i s a v a i l a b l e . The d i f f e r e n t i a l costs o f the a c t i v i t i e s engaged i n at the d i f f e r e n t status l e v e l s and the d i f f e r e n t educations, h a b i t s and values that c h a r a c t e r i z e people at the separate p r e s t i g e l e v e l s make people more comfortable with t h e i r own k i n d . " (Kahl and Davis, 1965, p. 153)  Although the theory was  l i m i t e d t o s i t u a t i o n s i n which one person g i v e s  amounts o f one m a t e r i a l commodity t o another i n r e t u r n f o r amounts o f another m a t e r i a l commodity, scope c o n d i t i o n 2 could be modified so that the encompassed s i t u a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g c e r t a i n non m a t e r i a l resources  theory  such as  -73-  knowledge.  I t i s an i n t e r e s t i n g f a c t t h a t t h e r e s u l t s o f a number o f s t u d i e s  o f conmunication p a t t e r n s w i t h i n groups r e p o r t e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e have t h e same g e n e r a l g e s t a l t t h a t we would p r e d i c t i f the s i t u a t i o n s i n v o l v e d m a t e r i a l resources.  F o r example, R i l e y et a l  asked  (1954)  9th  and 10th grade g i r l s  whom, i n t h e i r own grade, they would most l i k e l y t a l k w i t h on each o f a number o f designated t o p i c s which ranged from Issues concerning peer r e l a t i o n s t o problems o f r i g h t and wrong, and found t h a t the g i r l s tended t o choose o t h e r s •7  o f e i t h e r equal o r h i g h e r s o c i a l s t a t u s .  And Hurwitz et a l (I960) i n a study  o f conmunication i n groups composed o f mental hygiene workers o f h i g h and low o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s found t h a t both the highs and t h e lows were most l i k e l y t o d i r e c t t h e i r communications t o h i g h s . F i n a l l y , the b a s i c assumption u n d e r l y i n g the theory i s t h a t t h e members o f a c o l l e c t i v i t y exchange amounts o f resources w i t h one  another  because they p e r c e i v e t h a t they w i l l be b e t t e r o f f w i t h s i m i l a r amounts o f both resources than w i t h a l o t o f one resource and a l i t t l e o f the o t h e r .  It  f o l l o w s from t h i s assumption t h a t each member's l e v e l s on t h e two r e s o u r c e s w i l l e q u i l i b r a t e as a consequence o f t h e exchange i n t e r a c t i o n s i n which he i s involved.  I f resource dimensions are s t a t u s dimensions, t h i s argument i s v e r y Q  s i m i l a r t o t h a t advanced by Benoit-Smullyan  who observed t h a t the s t a t u s  l e v e l s e x h i b i t e d by the members o f n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g groups appear t o e q u i l i b r a t e over time. Conclusion The aim o f t h i s chapter has been t o suggest t h a t a number o f aspects o f s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n i n n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g c o l l e c t i v i t i e s t h a t have been s t u d i e d might be e x p l a i n e d by a theory s i m i l a r t o the theory presented i n  -74chapter I I . Out o f need, t h e case has been sketched r a t h e r than  demonstrated  c o n c l u s i v e l y because a t t e n t i o n has never been s p e c i f i c a l l y d i r e c t e d toward t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and t a b u l a t i o n o f resources f l o w i n g v i a repeated exchange i n t e r a c t i o n s between the members o f n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g s i t u a t i o n . enough has been demonstrated m e r i t s f u r t h e r work.  Nevertheless,  t o j u s t i f y t h e c l a i m t h a t the theory presented  MX)TNOTES  1. "'•See: M. Webster J r . and J . K e r v i n , The Problem o f A r t i f i c i a l i t y I n  Experimental S o c i o l o g y . Paper d e l i v e r e d a t Canadian S o c i o l o g y and Anthropology A s s o c i a t i o n annual meetings h e l d a t York U n i v e r s i t y , 1969. John Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y . Mimeographed. To be p u b l i s h e d i n t h e Canadian Review o f S o c i o l o g y and Anthropology (November, 1971).  P.A. S o r o k i n , What i s a s o c i a l c l a s s ? J o u r n a l o f L e g a l and P o l i t i c a l Science (1947), pp. 21-28. Reprinted i n : C l a s s , S t a t u s and Power: A reader i n s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n . R. Bendix and S.M. L i p s e t ( e d i t o r s ) . (Free Press o f Glencoe, 1953), pp. 87-92. K.B. Mayer and W. Buckley, C l a s s and S o c i e t y . House, 1969), t h i r d e d i t i o n .  (New York:  Random  "'H.C. T r i a n d i s and V. V a s s i l i o u , S o c i a l s t a t u s as a determinant o f respect and f r i e n d s h i p acceptance. Sociometry 2£ (1966), pp. 396-405. The r e s e a r c h e r s i n t e r v i e w e d a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sample o f 400 r e s i d e n t s i n Athens (Greece). ^See, f o r example: ( i ) J.A. K a h l w i t h an i n t r o d u c t i o n by K. D a v i s , The American C l a s s S t r u c t u r e . (New York: H o l t , Rinehart and Winston, 1965). On pp. 137-138 K a h l r e p o r t s a study done by Davis and K a h l i n Cambridge, Massachusetts I n 1953. They asked 199 men between 30 and 49 years o f age t o g i v e t h e occupation o f t h e i r 3 best f r i e n d s . The occupation o f t h e respondents and t h e i r best f r i e n d s were coded a c c o r d i n g t o North & Hatt p r e s t i g e scores (0 = 1-23, 1 = 24-36, 2 = 37-60, 3 = 61-77 and 4 = 78-90). Table 3, p. 138 ( p r e v i o u s l y unpublished) Cambridge: Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n o f s t a t u s o f best f r i e n d s . Average s t a t u s o f t h r e e best f r i e n d s Status o f Respondent  0 1 2 3 4  n  19 34 82 47 17  199  0-0.9  1-1.9  74 32 10  16 38 15 9  2-2.9  3+  Has none  15 50 38 35  3 12 30 35  10 12 13 23 30  100% 100% 100% 100% 100%  -76( i i ) D.W.G. Timms, Occupational s t r a t i f i c a t i o n and f r i e n d s h i p nomination: A study i n Brisbane. A u s t r a l i a and New Zealand J o u r n a l o f S o c i o l o g y 3_ (1967)nl, pp. 32-43, p. 38 Table 3. Percentage o f best f r i e n d s i n each o c c u p a t i o n a l category by occupation o f respondent: . ^, Occ. Category ot. f r> Respondent n  A.  n  Percentage o f Best F r i e n d s No. o f i n each occ. category respondents ^ &  Males  1 11  P r o f e s s i o n a l & managerial C l e r i c a l & Sales I I I S k i l l e d manual IV Semi s k i l l e d manual V U n s k i l l e d manual B.  Females  I II III TV V  P r o f e s s i o n a l & managerial C l e r i c a l & Sales S k i l l e d manual Semi s k i l l e d manual U n s k i l l e d manual  J  No. o f Friends  I  II  Ill  IV  73 9 10 4 9  20 75 22 19 16  6 6 49 20 12  1 5 5 10 9 35 23 18 44  48 51 41 45 55  132 110 87 88 92  76 12 11 7 8  16 61 38 25 21  4 11 28 17 19  2 11 16 37 16  50 62 41 37 58  147 142 120 86 85  V  2 5 8 15 35  153.  J.A. K a h l , op. c i t . , p.  ' M a t i l d a W. R i l e y et a l , I n t e r p e r s o n a l o r i e n t a t i o n s i n s m a l l groups: A c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the q u e s t i o n n a i r e approach. American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 19  (1954), pp. 715-724.  Each respondent's s t a t u s was d e f i n e d i n terms o f q u e s t i o n n a i r e data t h a t were assumed t o I n d i c a t e the deference e l i c i t e d by the respondent from a l l the o t h e r s . Extent o f Dyadic " T a l k i n g " (by t h e s t a t u s o f both p a r t n e r s ) Status o f subj ect  Status o f object Low,0 W  low  high Note:  0 1 2 3 4 5  .07 .11 .07 .07 .05 .04  1  2  .26 .26 .20 .18 • 19 .16  .22 .26 • 38 .36 .33 • 25  3 .26 • 34 .42 .62 • 52 • 39  4  5  .41 .47 .54 • 76 .81 .66  • 49 .60 .69 .81 .88 1.36  H 1  f i g u r e i n c e l l s represent p r o p o r t i o n o f t o p i c s they would l i k e t o t a l k about ( i . e . , the d e s i r e d amount o f communication).  -77-  °J.I. H u r w l t z et a l , Some e f f e c t s o f power i n t h e r e l a t i o n s among group members, i n Group Dynamics: Research and Theory. E d i t e d by D. C a r t w r i g h t and A. Zander. (New York: Harper and Row, i960), 2nd e d i t i o n . Frequency o f communication between h i g h and low s t a t u s mental hygiene workers: Status of communicator  Status of recipient  Frequency o f Communication  high  high  4.89  high  low  3.66  low  high  3.61  low  low  2.71  9  E. Benoit-Smullyan, S t a t u s t y p e s , s t a t u s i n t e r r e l a t i o n s . S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 9 (1944), pp. 151-161.  American  BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Bevan, W. and R.E. Adamson. Internal referents and the concept of reinforcement. In: Interdisciplinary Behavior Sciences Research Conference, University of New Mexico, Decisions, Values and Groups, proceedings, vol. 2. New York: Pergamon, 1963. Bevan W. The pooling mechanism and the phenomena of reinforcement. Chapter 2 in: Motivation and Social Interaction. Edited by O.J. Harvey. New York: Ronald, 1963. Blau, P.M. The Dynamics of Bureaucracy: A study in interpersonal relations in two governmental agencies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955-  •  Bureaucracy in Modern Society.  New York: Random House, 1956.  .  Exchange and Power in Social Life.  John Wiley and Sons, 1964.  Boulding, K.E. Economic Analysis: Vol. I, Microeconomics. New York: Harper Row, 1966. 4th edition. Dahrendorf, R. On the origin of inequality among men. In: Essays in the Theory of Society. Stanford University Press, 1968. Reprinted in: The Logic of Social Hierarchies. Edited by E.O. Laumann et a l . Chicago: Markham, 1970. Decision Making: selected readings. Penguin Books, 1967.  Edited by W. Edwards and A. Tversky.  Decisions and Choice: Contributions of Sidney Siegel. Edited by S. Messick and A.H. Brayfield. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964. Emerson, R.M. Operant psychology and exchange theory. In: Behavioral Sociology. Edited by R.L. Burgess and D. Bushell. New York: Columbia University Press, 1969. . Exchange theory Part I: A psychological basis for social exchange, and Part II: Exchange Relations, exchange networks and groups as exchange systems. In: Sociological Theories in Progress, Vol. II. Edited by J. Berger et al. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin (forthcoming). Gouldner, A.W. Organizational analysis. In: Sociology Today. Edited by Merton et al. New York: Basic Books, 1959.  R.K.  -79Helson, H. A d a p t a t i o n - l e v e l theory: An experimental systematic approach t o behavior. New York: Harper and Row, 1964. Homans, G.C. S o c i a l Behavior: Brace and Co., 1961.  I t s elementary forms.  New York:  Harcourt,  Hurwitz, J . I . , A.F. Zander and B. Hymovitch. Some e f f e c t s o f power on t h e r e l a t i o n s among group members. Chapter 42 i n : Group Dynamics: Research and theory. E d i t e d by D. Cartwright and A. Zander. New York: Harper and Row, i960. 2nd e d i t i o n . K e l l e y , H.H. I n t e r a c t i o n process and t h e attainment o f maximum j o i n t p r o f i t . Chapter 16 i n : D e c i s i o n and Choice: C o n t r i b u t i o n s o f Sidney S i e g e l . E d i t e d by S. Messick and A.H. B r a y f i e l d . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964. Kuhn, A. The Study o f S o c i e t y : Dorsey, 1963.  A u n i f i e d approach.  Homewood, 111.:  Irwin-  L e v i - S t r a u s s , C. Les S t r u c t u r e s Elementaires de l a Parente. Presses U n i v e r s i t a i r e s de France, 1949• Chapter V: Le p r i n c i p l e de r e c i p r o c i t e " , abridged and t r a n s l a t e d by Rose L. Coser and Grace F r a z e r and p r i n t e d in: S o c i o l o g i c a l Theory: A book o f readings, e d i t e d by L.A. Coser and B. Rosenberg. New York: MacMillan, 1957. Luce, R.D. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Studies o f r i s k y d e c i s i o n making. I n : S o c i a l Science Approaches t o Business Behavior. E d i t e d by G.B. S t r o t h e r . R.D. I r w i n Inc., 1962. Reprinted i n : D e c i s i o n Making. E d i t e d by W. Edwards and A. Tversky. Penguin, 1967. Mauss, M. The G i f t . Co., 1967.  T r a n s l a t e d by I . Gunnison.  Mayer, K.B. and W. Buckley. 3rd e d i t i o n .  Class and S o c i e t y .  New York:  New York:  W.W.  Norton and  Random House, 1969.  S a h l i n s , M.D. On the sociology o f P r i m i t i v e exchange. I n : The Relevance o f Models f o r S o c i a l Anthropology. (American S o c i o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n monograph, No. 1). E d i t o r : M. Banton. London: T a v i s t o c k P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1965. S i e g e l , S. and L.E. Fouraker. York: McGraw-Hill,  Bargaining and Group-decision Making.  i960.  New  S i e g e l , S. I n c o l l a b o r a t i o n with A l b e r t a E. S i e g e l and J u l i a M. Andrews. Choice Strategy and U t i l i t y . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964. Simmel, G. The Sociology o f Georg Simmel. T r a n s l a t e d , e d i t e d and i n t r o d u c e d by K.H. Wolff. New York: Free Press, 1950. Sorokin, P.A.  What i s a s o c i a l c l a s s ? J o u r n a l o f L e g a l and P o l i t i c a l Science Reprinted i n : C l a s s , Status and Power: A reader i n s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n . E d i t e d by R. Bendix and S.M. L i p s e t . Free Press o f Glencoe, 1953.  1947, pp. 21-28.  -80-  Thibaut, J.W. and H.H. Kelley. The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: Wiley, 1959. Whyte, W.F.  Street Corner Society.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press,  1943.  Young, P.T. Motivation and Emotion: A survey of determinants of human and animal activity. New York: John Wiley and Sons Ltd., 1961.  Articles Abrahamson, B. Homans on exchange: Hedonism revived. American Journal of Sociology 76 (1970)n2, pp. 273-285. Barnett, H.G. The nature of the potlatch. American Anthropologist 40 (1938). Benoit-Smullyan, E. Status types, Status interrelations. Review £ (1944), pp. 151-161.  American Sociological  Blau, P.M. Social integration, social rank and processes of interaction. Human Organization XVIII (1959-60), pp. 152-157. ~  A theory of social integration.  American Journal of Sociology 65  (i960), pp. 550-553.  Boulding, K.E. Two critique of Homans' Social Behavior: Its elementary forms. An Economist's view. American Journal of Sociology 67 (196l-62)n4, pp. 458-461.  Burgess, R.L. and R.L. Akers. Are operant principles tautological? Psychological Record 16 (1966), pp. 305-312. Cohn, W. Social status and the ambivalence hypothesis: Some critical notes and a suggestion. American Sociological Review 25_ (1960)n4, pp. 508Cottrel, L.S., Jr. and Rosalind P. Dymond. The empathic responses: A neglected field for research. Psychiatry XII (1949), pp. 355-359Davis, J.A. Two critique of Homans' Social Behavior: Its elementary forms. A sociologist's view. American Journal of Sociology 67_ (196~l-62)n4, pp. 454-458.  Deutsch, M. Homans in the Skinner box.  Sociological Inquiry 34 (1964)n2,  pp. 156-I65.  Dymond, Rosalind. A scale for the measurement of empathic ability. of Consulting Psychiatry XIII (1949), pp. 127-133.  Journal  -81-  Flament, C. and E. Apfelbaum. Elementary processes o f communication and s t r u c t u r a t i o n i n a small group. J o u r n a l o f Experimental and S o c i a l Psychology 2 (1966), pp. 376-386. F r a n k l i n , C.W., J r . Operant concepts and s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 14 (197l)nl, pp. 5-19.  Pacific  Gouldner, A.W. The norm o f r e c i p r o c i t y : A p r e l i m i n a r y statement. S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 25 (1960)n2, pp. 161-178.  American  Harsanyi, J.C. A bargaining model f o r s o c i a l status i n i n f o r m a l groups and formal o r g a n i z a t i o n s . B e h a v i o r a l Science V I I (1966)n5, pp. 357-369Heath, A.  Maclntyre  93-96.  Homans, G.C.  on Blau.  (Correspondence).  S o c i a l behavior as exchange.  (1957-58), pp. 597-606.  Sociology 2 (1968)nl, pp.  American J o u r n a l o f Sociology 63  K e l l e y , H.H. Communication i n experimentally created h i e r a r c h i e s . R e l a t i o n s VIV (195D, pp. 39-56.  Human  Land, K.C. and R.C. Rockwell. ( U n i v e r s i t y o f Texas A u s t i n ) . A C r i t i c a l and Programatic Examination o f Exchange Theory. Proceedings o f the Southwest S o c i o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n 16(1966), pp. 183-187. Longabough, R. A category system f o r coding I n t e r p e r s o n a l behavior as s o c i a l exchange. Sociometry 26_ (1963), pp. 319-345. Maclntyre, A. P.M. Blau: Exchange and Power i n S o c i a l L i f e . Sociology 1 (1967)n2, pp. 199-201. Maris, R. The l o g i c a l adequacy o f Homans' s o c i a l theory. S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 35 (1970)n6, pp. 1069-1081.  (Book review).  American  Messick, D.M. and W.B. Thorngate. R e l a t i v e g a i n maximization i n experimental games. J o u r n a l o f Experimental and S o c i a l Psychology 3. (1967), pp.  85-101.  Muir, D.E. and E.A.  Weinstein.  Norms o f s o c i a l o b l i g a t i o n .  S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 27 (1962), pp. 532-539.  American  R i l e y , M a t i l d a W. e t a l . I n t e r p e r s o n a l o r i e n t a t i o n s i n small groups: A questionnaire approach. American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 19_ (1954), pp.  715-724.  Rosen, S. The comparative r o l e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n a l and m a t e r i a l comnodities i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r a n s a c t i o n s . J o u r n a l o f Experimental and S o c i a l Psychology 2 (1966), pp. 211-226. Schwartz, B.  The s o c i a l psychology o f the g i f t .  73 (1967)nl, pp. 1-11.  American J o u r n a l o f Sociology  -82-  Schwartz, M. The r e c i p r o c i t i e s m u l t i p l i e r : An e m p i r i c a l e v a l u a t i o n . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y 9. (1964), pp. 264-277Timms, D.W.G. Occupational s t r a t i f i c a t i o n and f r i e n d s h i p nomination: A study i n B r i s b a n e . A u s t r a l i a and New Zealand J o u r n a l o f S o c i o l o g y 3_ (1971)nl,  PP- 32-43.  T r i a d i s , H.C. and V. V a s s i l i o u . S o c i a l s t a t u s as a determinant o f r e s p e c t and f r i e n d s h i p acceptance. Sociometry 29 (1966), pp. 396-405Turner, K.H. R o l e - t a k i n g , r o l e standpoint and reference-group b e h a v i o r . American J o u r n a l o f S o c i o l o g y 6 l (1956), pp. 316-328. W e i n s t e i n , E.A. and P. Deutschberger. Tasks, bargains and i d e n t i t i e s i n s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . S o c i a l Forces 42 (1964)n4, pp. 451-456..  Unpublished M a t e r i a l K r i e s b e r g , L. "Non-normative r e c i p r o c i t y : C r i t i q u e o f Gouldner's: The norm o f r e c i p r o c i t y : A p r e l i m i n a r y statement." M i c r o f i c h e 66-10. C.F.S.L., U n i v e r s i t y o f W i s c o n s i n . Milwaukee. Paper presented t o General S e s s i o n o f the Midwest S o c i o l o g i c a l S o c i e t y , Annual Meetings, i960. L e i k , R.K., R.M. Emerson and R.L. Burgess. "The Emergence o f S t r a t i f i c a t i o n i n Exchange Networks: An experimental demonstration." Paper presented at the West Coast Conference f o r Small Group Research. San Diego, 1968. I n s t i t u t e f o r S o c i o l o g i c a l Research: U n i v e r s i t y o f Washington, S e a t t l e . (Mimeographed)  APPENDIX I PILOT WORK The f i r s t experiments c a r r i e d out suggested t h a t exchanges were almost random and on t h e b a s i s o f i n f o r m a l post experimental i n t e r v i e w s i t was decided t h a t as a consequence o f t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s used t h e p r i n c i p l e o f d i m i n i s h i n g m a r g i n a l u t i l i t y was not o p e r a t i n g .  The problem seemed t o l i e i n  the f a c t t h a t t h e s u b j e c t s d i d not know what t h e buttons would be used f o r and hence d i d not know how t o value t h e buttons.  Hence, s u b j e c t s were asked t o  operate on t h e b a s i s o f a t a b l e t h a t i n d i c a t e d how much d i f f e r e n t numbers o f buttons would be worth d u r i n g t h e second p a r t o f t h e game.  The procedure o f  g i v i n g s u b j e c t s a t a b l e t o base t h e i r c a l c u l a t i o n s on i s precedented i n a study by S.S. S i e g e l and L.E. Pouraker, B a r g a i n i n g and Group D e c i s i o n Making. (New York:  McGraw-Hill,  i960).  I t had t h e advantage o f s t a n d a r d i z i n g t h e  v a l u e o f g i v e n numbers o f t h e d i f f e r e n t c o l o u r e d buttons without n e c e s s i t a t i n g f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e second p a r t o f t h e experiment.  The p r o v i s i o n o f  the t a b l e s r e s u l t e d i n a skewing o f i n i t i a t i o n s toward t h e h i g h s .  Further  experiments l e d f i r s t t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f l i m i t s on what t h e s u b j e c t s c o u l d o f f e r and second t o l i m i t s on what c o u l d be g i v e n i n r e t u r n . The f o l l o w i n g d a t a a r e t h e r e s u l t s o f s i x experiments r u n u s i n g f o u r s u b j e c t s p e r experiment: and 1 low 300 y e l l o w .  1 h i g h 600 b l u e , 1 h i g h 600 y e l l o w , 1 low 300 b l u e ,  Highs could not o f f e r more than 50 buttons a t a time  though there was no r e s t r i c t i o n on how many buttons they c o u l d ask f o r i n return.  Lows could not o f f e r more than 25 a t a time and a g a i n t h e r e was no  r e s t r i c t i o n on how many buttons they could ask f o r i n r e t u r n .  11/12 highs and  10/12 lows i n i t i a t e d t o a h i g h d u r i n g t h e f i r s t o p p o r t u n i t y f o r exchange.  -84During t h e second o p p o r t u n i t y f o r exchange, however, 8/12 i n i t i a t e d t o lows.  highs and 7/12  lows  From o p p o r t u n i t y 3 through t o o p p o r t u n i t y 6 t h e s u b j e c t s  r e t u r n e d t o i n i t i a t i n g predominantly  t o the highs.  the odd r e s u l t s f o r o p p o r t u n i t y 2 were caused by:  I t seemed most l i k e l y t h a t ( i ) t h e f a c t t h a t t h e lows'  f a i l u r e t o enter i n t o exchanges d u r i n g t h e f i r s t o p p o r t u n i t y had made them conspicuous i n t h a t they s t i l l had o n l y one p i l e o f buttons i n f r o n t o f them, and ( i i )  the u t i l i t y o f response v a r i a b i l i t y (see S. S i e g e l i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n  w i t h A l b e r t a S i e g e l and J u l i a M. Andrews, Choice S t r a t e g y and U t i l i t y , New York:  McGraw-Hill,  1964).  The f a c t t h a t t h e lows d i d not g i v e up i n i t i a t i n g  t o the highs seemed t o be a consequence o f t h e f a c t t h a t t h e odd l a r g e o f f e r s t o t h e lows from t h e highs t h a t were accepted by t h e lows ( i . e . , t h e r e were no r e s t r i c t i o n s on what s u b j e c t s c o u l d g i v e i n r e t u r n ) m i t i g a t e d t h e need f o r t h e lows t o get t o g e t h e r .  Subsequent experiments were r u n g i v i n g s u b j e c t s i n i t i a l  amounts o f both resources and a p p l y i n g r e s t r i c t i o n s not o n l y t o what c o u l d be o f f e r e d but a l s o t o what c o u l d be g i v e n i n r e t u r n .  APPENDIX I I LABORATORY SET-UP  A.  The booths used were as I l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 9-  Figure 9.  A booth  1 2  3 4 5 6 1. Dacron p o l y e s t e r , semi sheer gauze with 1/16 i n c h sheer s t r i p s running v e r t i c a l l y and h o r i z o n t a l l y 1/4 Inch apart. When the room was i l l u m i n a t e d from the center, subjects could see through the gauze window i n f r o n t o f them but not through both t h e i r window and the windows i n f r o n t o f the other s u b j e c t s . 2.  Card t e l l i n g subject what resources he had t o begin  with.  3. Subject's l e t t e r (also on the f r o n t o f the booth so that t h e other subjects could see i t ) . 4. A 4 i n c h gap allowed subject t o keep h i s buttons out I n f r o n t o f the booth so that the other subjects could see them. 5. Card t e l l i n g subject t h a t t h e r e are l i m i t s on the s i z e o f o f f e r s he can make and the s i z e o f amounts he can g i v e i n r e t u r n . 6. Table i n d i c a t i n g the worth o f d i f f e r e n t numbers o f buttons o f a given colour f o r the second p a r t o f t h e game. The i n s t r u c t i o n s drew a t t e n t i o n t o the f a c t that the t a b l e i m p l i e s law o f d i m i n i s h i n g marginal utility.  -86-  B.  The cards pinned t o t h e lower b a r o f t h e booths were as i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 10.  F i g u r e 10.  Sample cards pinned t o lower b a r o f each s u b j e c t ' s booth.  G.  600 30  Blue Yellow  LIMITS You cannot o f f e r more than 30 buttons a t a time You cannot accept any o f f e r t h a t r e q u i r e s you t o g i v e more t h a n 30 buttons i n r e t u r n . There a r e no r e s t r i c t i o n s on what you ask f o r i n r e t u r n f o r what you o f f e r .  C.  F i g u r e 11 i s a copy o f t h e t a b l e pinned t o t h e s i d e o f each s u b j e c t ' s  booth (note t h a t t h e t a b l e i s based on an exponent o f .5 - see: p, 67 D e c i s i o n Making.  E d i t e d by W. Edwards and A. Tversky.  Edwards, d i s c u s s i n g t h e u t i l i t y  of money, says, "...The most d i r e c t way o f f i n d i n g out how v a l u a b l e $10 i s t o someone i s t o ask him.  No one has done t h a t but Stevens r e p o r t s a n e c d o t a l l y  the r e s u l t s o f a semi experiment i n which G a l a n t e r asked Ss how much money would be t w i c e ( o r h a l f ) as d e s i r a b l e as $10, and o t h e r amounts.  He found  r e s u l t s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Steven's g e n e r a l power law f o r psychophysics, w i t h an experiment o f 0.5, which i m p l i e s d e c r e a s i n g m a r g i n a l u t i l i t y . . . . " ) .  -87-  F i g u r e 11.  Copy o f t h e Table pinned t o t h e s i d e o f each s u b j e c t ' s booth  (upper h a l f )  800 790 780 770 760 750 7^0 730  720 710 700 690  680 670  660  650 640 630 620 610 600  T o t a l number o f buttons o f a given colour: (Notice t h a t t h e increments on t h i s side are a l l equal.)  590 580 570 560 550 540 530 520 510 500 490  480  470 460 450 440 430 420 410 400 390 380 370 360 350 340 330 320 310  2826 2806 2786 2766 2746 2726 2706 2686 2666 2646 2626 2606 2586 2566 2546 2526 2496 2476 2456 2436 2416 2396 2376 2356 2336 2316 2296 2276 2256  2236  2216 2196 2176 2156  2136 2116 2096 2072 2048 2024 2000 1975  1949 1923  1897 1871 1843 1815  1787 1759  \>173V  Net worth o f t o t a l number o f buttons of a given colour i n value u n i t s f o r t h e second phase o f t h e experiment. (Notice that t h e increments on t h i s side are smaller at t h e t o p than a t t h e bottom.)  -88-  F i g u r e 11 (continued) (lower  half)y  \/>'290 280 270 260 250 240 230 220 210 T o t a l number o f 200 buttons o f a 190 given colour: 180 (Notice that the 170 increments on 160 t h i s side are 150 a l l equal.) 140 130 120 110 100 90 /  V  80  70  60  Base l i n e zero  50 40 30 20 10 0  1703 1672 1642  1612  1580 1548 1516 1484 1450 1416 1380 1342 1303 1263 1224 1183 1141  1099  1049 1000 949  Net worth o f t o t a l number o f buttons of a g i v e n c o l o u r i n value u n i t s f o r the second phase of t h e experiment. (Notice that the increments on t h i s side are smaller at t h e t o p than a t the bottom.)  895  837 774 707 632 547 446 316  -  Base l i n e zero  APPENDIX I I I INSTRUCTIONS The i n s t r u c t i o n s were g i v e n by means o f a tape r e c o r d e r - t h e same i n s t r u c t i o n s were used f o r each experiment.  The i n s t r u c t i o n s were taped  because i t was n o t i c e d d u r i n g p i l o t work t h a t some s u b j e c t s seemed t o have t r o u b l e a s s i m i l a t i n g t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s when they were g i v e n i n w r i t t e n form. The i n s t r u c t i o n s were g i v e n i n as i n f o r m a l and r e l a x e d a way as p o s s i b l e . f o l l o w i n g i s a t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s employed. " . . . H i ! Thanks f o r t u n i n g up t o take p a r t i n t h i s experiment. You a r e going t o p l a y a game c a l l e d exchange and b u i l d and as t h e name suggests t h e r e a r e going t o be two p a r t s t o i t . The i n s t r u c t i o n s , t h a t I am going t o g i v e you now, o n l y concern t h e f i r s t p a r t and we a r e going t o f o r g e t about t h e second part u n t i l l a t e r . Exchange and b u i l d i s t h e s o r t o f game i n which some o f you w i l l do b e t t e r than others - i n other words, you w i l l be out f o r y o u r s e l v e s . During t h i s f i r s t p a r t o f t h e game, you a r e g o i n g t o be exchanging o r t r a d i n g buttons w i t h one another and t h e o b j e c t o f t h e f i r s t p a r t o f t h e game i s t o b u i l d up t h e s m a l l p i l e o f buttons i n f r o n t o f you without l o s i n g too many buttons from the l a r g e p i l e i n f r o n t o f you. Let me put t h a t another way. The o b j e c t o f t h e f i r s t p a r t , then, Is t o i n c r e a s e t h e number o f buttons o f which you have l e a s t a t t h e moment without l o s i n g too many buttons o f which you have most. You need t o do t h i s because i n t h e next p a r t o f t h e game t h e two c o l o u r s a r e used f o r completely d i f f e r e n t purposes. So you w i l l need buttons o f both c o l o u r s i n t h e next p a r t o f t h e game. Now i f you look a t t h e t a b l e on the s i d e o f your screen y o u ' l l n o t i c e t h a t t h e r e a r e two columns o f f i g u r e s t h e r e . The column o f f i g u r e s on t h e l e f t r e f e r t o d i f f e r e n t s i z e d p i l e s o f buttons o f a g i v e n c o l o u r - t h e column on t h e r i g h t t e l l s you how much these d i f f e r e n t s i z e d p i l e s o f buttons o f a g i v e n c o l o u r would be  The  -90-  worth i n the next p a r t o f the game. Now i f you l o o k c l o s e l y at the f i g u r e s i n the columns, y o u ' l l n o t i c e t h a t the f i g u r e s on the l e f t i n c r e a s e t e n at a time so they go t e n , twenty, t h i r t y , f o r t y and so on r i g h t up t o 800. However, the f i g u r e s on the r i g h t i n c r e a s e i n b i g jumps t o b e g i n w i t h and t h e jumps get s m a l l e r and s m a l l e r as you go from t h e bottom up t o t h e t o p . Because the f i g u r e s i n the two columns Increase i n d i f f e r e n t ways, the t a b l e t e l l s us two v e r y important t h i n g s . The f i r s t t h i n g i t t e l l s us i s t h a t i f you have got a l o t o f buttons o f a g i v e n c o l o u r ten more would be worth l e s s t o you than I f you o n l y had a few buttons o f t h a t colour...ahmm... l e t me show...let me demonstrate t h a t . Say you had a p i l e o f 790 b l u e buttons you see t h a t they would be worth 2806 v a l u e u n i t s i n the next p a r t of the game...O.K. ...and i f you got t e n more o f them i t would put your p i l e up t o 800 and a p i l e of 800 i s worth 2826 so t h a t you would have gained 20 v a l u e u n i t s . However, i f you o n l y had a p i l e o f 100 b l u e buttons and you got t e n more you f i n d t h a t 100 blue buttons would be worth 1000 v a l u e u n i t s f o r the next p a r t o f t h e game and a p i l e o f 110 i s worth 1049 - so whereas i f you had 790 buttons t e n e x t r a are worth 20 v a l u e u n i t s , i f you've o n l y got 100, t e n e x t r a are worth 49. Once a g a i n the i d e a i s t h a t t h e more buttons you have o f a g i v e n c o l o u r the l e s s worth t e n e x t r a would be. T h i s i s t h e same t h i n g as s a y i n g t h a t $10 i s worth l e s s t o a m i l l i o n a i r e than say t o a person on w e l f a r e . ....The second t h i n g t h a t the t a b l e t e l l s you i s t h a t i f you have a l o t o f buttons o f one c o l o u r and o n l y a few o f the o t h e r c o l o u r you w i l l a c t u a l l y i n c r e a s e the worth o f your buttons every time you exchange some o f the buttons o f which you have most f o r some o f the buttons o f which you have l e a s t . Now l e t me show you how t h i s works i f you had...say 800 blue buttons you f i n d t h a t they are worth 2826 v a l u e u n i t s f o r the next p a r t o f t h e game ....O.K and i f t h a t was a l l you had you decided t h a t you had t o . . . t h a t you would exchange one h a l f o f your blue buttons f o r some y e l l o w buttons so t h a t you would end up w i t h 400 b l u e buttons and 400 y e l l o w buttons you'd f i n d t h a t a p i l e o f 400 blue buttons would be worth - w e l l see i t from the t a b l e 2000 v a l u e u n i t s and s i n c e you've a l s o managed t o get a p i l e o f y e l l o w buttons they would a l s o be worth 2000 v a l u e u n i t s so two p i l e s o f  -91-  buttons are worth 2000 + 2000 4000 v a l u e u n i t s and you n o t i c e t h a t whereas 800 b l u e buttons were only worth 2826 v a l u e u n i t s , two p i l e s : one p i l e o f blue and one p i l e o f y e l l o w - 400 each - would be worth 4000 v a l u e u n i t s . So you would have a c t u a l l y i n c r e a s e d the v a l u e o f your buttons by exchanging. S i n c e b i g p i l e s are o f course b e t t e r t h a n s m a l l p i l e s , y o u ' l l be even b e t t e r o f f i f you can p i c k up a few buttons w h i l e you are exchanging - t h a t i s , i f you can get the others t o g i v e you a few more i n r e t u r n t h a n you have t o g i v e them though, o f course, you may f i n d t h i s d i f f i c u l t t o do because the others might not l i k e the i d e a . I f you l o o k through your s c r e e n , y o u ' l l n o t i c e t h a t each o f the o t h e r screens has a l e t t e r p r i n t e d a t the t o p o f i t - y o u ' l l n o t i c e t h a t your screen has a l e t t e r p r i n t e d on the lower bar j u s t i n f r o n t o f you. Now - I'm going t o r u n through t h e steps i n v o l v e d i n a s i n g l e exchange o p p o r t u n i t y so t h a t y o u ' l l get a b e t t e r i d e a o f what you are going t o do. Remember you are g o i n g t o have a number o f these exchange o p p o r t u n i t i e s . F i r s t o f a l l y o u ' l l l o o k through your screen t o see what the others have and decide whether you want t o send an o f f e r t o one o f the others...ahnm...you do not have t o send an o f f e r u n l e s s you want t o . . . . s o i f you decide t h a t you want t o send an o f f e r then y o u ' l l f i l l out one o f t h e forms i n f r o n t o f you....now....you cannot send an o f f e r o f more than t h e l i m i t t h a t ' s w r i t t e n on the c a r d pinned t o the lower bar o f your screen. However, you can ask f o r whatever number o f buttons you l i k e i n r e t u r n f o r the buttons you o f f e r . . . s o t h a t although t h e r e i s a l i m i t on what you are allowed t o o f f e r , t h e r e i s no r e s t r i c t i o n on what you are a l l o w e d t o request i n r e t u r n f o r what you offer....ahmm... Once you've done t h i s - once you've f i l l e d out a form and counted out the buttons t h a t you are o f f e r i n g , put both the form and the buttons i n the bowl i n f r o n t o f you. When everyone has done t h i s , I ' l l d e l i v e r a l l the bowls t o the people t h a t they are addressed t o . Now - i t i s c l e a r t h a t w h i l e your bowl i s round a t someone e l s e ' s booth e i t h e r one o r more bowls may come round t o your booth and you can accept one - o n l y one - p r o v i d i n g i t does not r e q u i r e you t o g i v e more than your l i m i t i n r e t u r n . You cannot accept any o f f e r t h a t r e q u i r e s you t o g i v e more than your l i m i t i n r e t u r n . I f you accept an o f f e r , put a check mark on  -92-  the form t h a t came w i t h i t and any o f f e r s t h a t you r e j e c t put crosses on t h e forms t h a t came w i t h them. When everyone has done t h a t , I ' l l ask those who have accepted an o f f e r t o take t h e buttons t h a t were sent t o them and t o count out t h e buttons t h a t they were requested t o g i v e i n r e t u r n . I ' l l then r e t u r n a l l t h e bowls t o t h e i r owners and, o f course, w e ' l l be ready t o begin t h e next exchange opportunity. I'd j u s t l i k e t o be c l e a r on one p o i n t t h a t d u r i n g each exchange o p p o r t u n i t y two t h i n g s a r e happening: somebody might be r e j e c t i n g o r a c c e p t i n g an o f f e r from you a t t h e same time as you a r e a c c e p t i n g o r r e j e c t i n g an o f f e r from somebody else...O.K. Now...throughout t h e course o f t h i s p a r t o f the game, t r y t o keep your buttons out i n f r o n t a l l t h e time so t h a t t h e others can see what you've got and you can keep t r a c k o f how many buttons you have on your s c r a t c h paper - t h e p i e c e o f y e l l o w paper t h a t you've been p r o v i d e d with...ahmm...the numbers t h a t you're beginning w i t h a r e w r i t t e n on t h e s m a l l c a r d pinned t o t h e lower b a r o f your screen. T h i s f i r s t p a r t o f t h e game w i l l take us about 40 minutes and y o u ' l l f i n d t h a t once we g e t going y o u ' l l have p l e n t y o f time t o make a l l t h e exchangesthat you need t o . ( s l i g h t laugh) Now I suppose I should say t h i s . . . p l e a s e do not cheat. Count out any buttons t h a t you a r e o f f e r i n g a c c u r a t e l y and observe t h e l i m i t s o n . . . w r i t t e n on t h e card on the lower b a r o f your screen. That i s , don't make any o f f e r s t h a t a r e l a r g e r than your l i m i t and don't accept any o f f e r s t h a t r e q u i r e you t o g i v e more than your l i m i t i n return...O.K. So i f you'd j u s t l i k e t o l o o k through your screen now and decide whether you want t o send an o f f e r t o one o f the others d u r i n g t h e f i r s t o p p o r t u n i t y , we can begin." (Time f o r tape:  12 minutes)  N o t i c e t h a t t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s emphasize: (i)  t h a t t h e two c o l o u r s a r e needed because they w i l l be used f o r  d i f f e r e n t purposes i n t h e second p a r t o f t h e game, (ii)  t h a t t h e s i t u a t i o n i s c o m p e t i t i v e i n t h e sense t h a t some s u b j e c t s  w i l l supposedly do b e t t e r than o t h e r s ,  -93-  (iii) colours,  t h a t the p r i n c i p l e s o f d i n r i n i s h i n g u t i l i t y a p p l i e s t o the  two  and  (iv)  t h a t t h e r e w i l l be p l e n t y o f time f o r the s u b j e c t s t o complete  a l l the exchanges t h a t they want t o .  APPENDIX IV POSITION EFFECTS Table 9 g i v e s t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e f i r s t i n i t i a t i o n i n Set 1.  These  r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e i s a tendency t o i n i t i a t e t o t h e most v i s i b l e person. Table 9-  V i s i b i l i t y o f P o s i t i o n s and I n i t i a t i o n s During t h e F i r s t O p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r Exchange Under t h e No D i f f e r e n c e s C o n d i t i o n  To subject furthest away ( i . e . , most v i s i b l e )  Initiator:  To s u b j e c t on l e f t side  To s u b j e c t on r i g h t side  To s u b j e c t immediately adjacent  G  4  1  1  I  4  0  0  2  K  3  0  2  1  M  2  1  1  2  H  2  1  1  2  J  3  L  2  2  2  0  N  3  0  0  2  23  6  7  11  0  1  2  1  f o r row o f t o t a l s i s s i g n i f i c a n t  1  p  n47 .001  APPENDIX V QUESTIONS ANSWERED BY SUBJECTS AFTER THE SEVEN  OPPOFffUNTTIES FOR EXCHANGE  SMALL GROUPS LABORATORY DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY AND SOCIOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Your l e t t e r to to to to to to to 2.  approve approve approve approve approve approve approve  or or or or or or or  disapprove disapprove disapprove disapprove_ disapprove disapprove disapprove  of of of of of of of  (letter) (letter) (letter) (letter) (letter) (letter) (letter)  Would you say that you t r i e d t o see your o f f e r - f r o m the other subject's p o i n t o f view whenever you were d e c i d i n g what t o o f f e r another subject? yes  no  Comments:  3.  I f you r e c e i v e d two o r more s i m i l a r o f f e r s at the same time, what f a c t o r s would you take i n t o account i n d e c i d i n g which one t o accept? Comments:  APPENDIX V I CHECK FOR ASSUMPTION H The d a t a r e p o r t e d i n Table 10 was c o l l e c t e d a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e experiments t h a t were r u n t o t e s t t h e hypotheses d e r i v e d from t h e t h e o r y presented i n chapter I I .  Table 8 i n d i c a t e s t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f responses t o  the post experimental q u e s t i o n :  Would you say t h a t you t r i e d t o see your o f f e r  from t h e other subj e c t ' s p o i n t o f view whenever you were d e c i d i n g what t o o f f e r another s u b j e c t ?  (see appendix V I I f o r t h e comnents t h e s u b j e c t s made i n  conjunction with t h i s question.) Table 10. Yes/No Responses t o t h e Post Experimental Question: Would you say t h a t you t r i e d t o see your o f f e r from t h e o t h e r s u b j e c t ' s p o i n t o f view whenever you were d e c i d i n g what t o o f f e r another s u b j e c t ? Set 1: (No d i f f e r e n c e s - experiments) • Set 2: (Moderate differences experiments) Set 3: (Extreme differences experiments)  h i g h p o s i t i o n Ss  16  8  n24  low p o s i t i o n Ss  19  5  n24  highs  19  5  n24  lows  19  5  n24  highs  27  5  n32  lows  30  2  n32  30  160  130  %  2  f o r column t o t a l s s i g n i f i c a n t a t p .001  APPENDIX V I I SAMPLE OP COMMENTS ELICITED BY POST EXPERIMENTAL QUESTION: Would you say t h a t you t r i e d t o see your o f f e r from the other  subject's  p o i n t o f view whenever you were d e c i d i n g what t o o f f e r another s u b j e c t ? A.  Evidence f o r empathy process: (i)  Set 1 (No d i f f e r e n c e s experiments) h i g h - p o s i t i o n s u b j e c t s . - I t r i e d t o t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n the p o i n t s he was t r y i n g t o accumulate by the s i z e o f h i s two p i l e s . - S e v e r a l times I o f f e r e d more c h i p s than I wanted i n order t o ensure t h a t t h e d e a l was accepted. ( i i ) Set 1 (No d i f f e r e n c e s experiments) l o w - p o s i t i o n s u b j e c t s . - I t r i e d t o make my o f f e r s as a t t r a c t i v e as p o s s i b l e but a l s o t o my b e n e f i t . - N a t u r a l l y - I wanted my o f f e r accepted. - I t r i e d t o f i g u r e out what h i s l i m i t was and t h e n t r i e d t o g i v e him a d e a l t h a t would b e n e f i t both. - Assuming one i s out t o 'win' he must make the best d e a l and one he f e e l s w i l l be acceptable. - yes but o n l y t o the extent o f s e e i n g , by the s i z e o f the other's two p i l e s , whether the o f f e r ' s reasonable. ( i i i ) Set 2 (Moderate d i f f e r e n c e s experiments) highs. - I d i d n ' t t r y t o make o f f e r s which were unreasonable because I knew they would be r e j e c t e d . - By always o f f e r i n g more than I intended t o r e c e i v e I was a p p e a l i n g t o h i s greedy nature. - I n order t h a t he would be more l i k e l y t o accept. - I looked t o see who could use the c o l o u r most. - I look t o see who has few o f the c o l o u r he i s t r y i n g t o get and make him a b i g o f f e r f o r a few more than I gave. - I looked at the s t a t e o f h i s p i l e t o see i f p r o f i t would work both ways. ( i v ) Set 2 (Moderate d i f f e r e n c e s experiments) lows. - Only o f f e r what you would accept y o u r s e l f . - I make o f f e r s where we w i l l both o p t i m a l number o f buttons (hence both g a i n ) . - He has t o l i k e the d e a l . - G e n e r a l l y t r y i n g t o make i t p r o f i t a b l e f o r both. (v) Set 3 (Extreme d i f f e r e n c e s experiments) highs. - T r i e d t o make o f f e r as good as .possible t o opponent w h i l e breaking even or making p o i n t s . - D e f i n i t e l y , you have t o see what he wants and how badly he wants i t . - I t r i e d t o f i g u r e out j u s t how much he needed blue buttons and  how f a r he would go. - I t r y t o get as much as I can t a k i n g i n t o account what he should be w i l l i n g t o g i v e . ( v i ) Set 3 (Extreme d i f f e r e n c e s experiments) lows. - Yes I f i g u r e d some guy was u n d e r c u t t i n g my o f f e r s so I put more down - However, I saw that he wasn't r e c e i v i n g any o f f e r s so I f i g u r e d he was c r a z y . - I wanted t o trade down t o the best p o s s i b l e number o f chips and then t r y t o trade f o r more than I o f f e r e d , t h e r e f o r e the p a r t y must be desperate. - I t r i e d t o see what terms they would accept. - Would see what the other subject might r e q u i r e . - Yes depending on the r e l a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e i n h i s two p i l e s o f buttons. - I've t r i e d t o make o f f e r s that h e l p us both t o an equal extent. I t seems no one wants t o l o s e any buttons. - You have t o see y o u r s e l f behind h i s p i l e , estimate approximately ...and then f i n d a mutually agreeable amount. Evidence against empathy process: (i)  Set ( i i ) Set -  1 (No d i f f e r e n c e s experiments) h i g h - p o s i t i o n s u b j e c t s . Everyone f o r himself. S i z e o f r e s p e c t i v e p i l e s biggest f a c t o r . 1 (No d i f f e r e n c e s experiments) l o w - p o s i t i o n subjects. I f you're s t r i c t l y out f o r y o u r s e l f ; i t i s up t o the other person t o watch out f o r themselves. - I t r i e d t o e s t a b l i s h the most number o f p o i n t s p o s s i b l e by equal t r a d i n g , then by o f f e r i n g l e s s f o r more I t r i e d t o improve my p o s i t i o n more. - I only looked t o see i f I b e n e f i t e d . ( i i i ) Set 2 (Moderate d i f f e r e n c e s experiments) highs. - I was only u s i n g my own point o f view t o o b t a i n my l a r g e s t g a i n . I f everyone has d i f f e r e n t t o t a l s the worth o f one c o l o u r cannot be approximated. ( i v ) Set 2 (Moderate d i f f e r e n c e s experiments) lows. - D i d what meant more g a i n f o r myself. - I can't say yes o r no because i n some cases I do and some cases I don't. One t h i n g I am not going t o do i s l e t other people b e t t e r themselves as a r e s u l t o f me. - Since everyone f o r himself. - Most o f the time, I o f f e r e d 1 : 1 d e a l s but I experimented on deals that would be p r o f i t a b l e f o r myself and found them lacking. (v) Set 3 (Extreme d i f f e r e n c e s experiments) highs. - I t r e a t t h i s only as a game that I don't have t o worry about my f e l l o w p l a y e r s . - T r i e d t o get as many f o r myself as p o s s i b l e . - I would only trade even up. - I was i n business merely t o make money. ( v i ) Set 3 (Extreme d i f f e r e n c e s experiments) lows. - I allowed my own s i t u a t i o n t o i n f l u e n c e more than the s i t u a t i o n o f the other subject.  APPENDIX V I I I SAMPLE OF COMMENTS ELICITED BY POST EXPERIMENTAL QUESTION: I f you r e c e i v e d two o r more s i m i l a r o f f e r s at the same t i m e , what f a c t o r s would you take i n t o account i n d e c i d i n g which one t o (i)  Set -  accept?  1 (No d i f f e r e n c e s experiments) h i g h - p o s i t i o n s u b j e c t s . chance o f another exchange w i t h the same person. Previous o f f e r s i f bargains or not. I accepted the one w i t h which I was d e a l i n g , over the one t h a t I was not making an exchange. - I f I c o u l d conduct more exchanges w i t h one o f them which would f i n a l l y prove p r o f i t a b l e . - I f I had t r a d e d w i t h one o f them b e f o r e , I would accept h i s over the other's w i t h a view t o e s t a b l i s h i n g a steady arrangement. - Whether the sender had agreed t o my o f f e r s and i f no experience w i t h e i t h e r would choose the order o f the l e t t e r o f alphabet sender. - How many times I've t r a d e d b e f o r e . - I would not break o f f a p r o f i t a b l e t r a d e aggreement f o r the sake o f a few e x t r a buttons. - Turn down the one t h a t turned me down on a p r e v i o u s o c c a s i o n . - Which one had o f f e r e d before I would accept. ( i i ) Set 1 (No d i f f e r e n c e s experiment) l o w - p o s i t i o n s u b j e c t s . - Who gave me good o f f e r s before he would get my b u s i n e s s . - I would accept the one who had the most c h i p s o f the c o l o u r I had t o o f f e r so t h a t I c o u l d send my next o f f e r t o the one j u s t refused. - what types o f o f f e r s he made before. - I would look t o see i f one o f the persons would be more l i k e l y to t r a d e a g a i n i n the f u t u r e . - the o f f e r e r ' s r e a c t i o n t o p r e v i o u s o f f e r s o f my own. - Whom I'd d e a l t w i t h before and the r e s u l t s . - The one t h a t looks l i k e he would be good t o t r a d e w i t h i n the future. - I would probably accept the one where the i n i t i a t i o n b e n e f i t e d least. - The one which had done business w i t h me. ( i i i ) Set 2 (Moderate d i f f e r e n c e s experiments) highs. - F i r s t one. - Previous deals w i t h other. - I would accept the most r e g u l a r customer. - Previous t r a d i n g 'record' w i t h the o t h e r s . - I ' l l t r a d e w i t h the one t h a t needs i t most. - which one has accepted me p r e v i o u s l y .  -100- u s u a l l y accepted t h e one who had l e s s o f what they wanted. - I f I am c a r r y i n g on a good t r a d e w i t h t h e same p e r s o n . - I f I c o u l d continue t o get steady income o f buttons from t h e person. ( i v ) Set 2 (Moderate d i f f e r e n c e s experiments) l o w s . - Past t r a d i n g . - How much I had been d e a l i n g w i t h each and would choose t h e most frequented. - I would l o o k a t my t r a d i n g r e c o r d and accept t h e o f f e r from the l e t t e r which I hadn't d e a l t w i t h . - I'd r e f u s e t h e guy t h a t was doing w e l l . - whether they had r e j e c t e d an o f f e r o f mine, depending on what k i n d o f o f f e r i t was ( i f i t was outrageous o f f e r o f mine, i t would not a f f e c t my d e c i s i o n ) . - a good o f f e r might be t u r n e d down t o r e t a i n good r e l a t i o n . - I f I had accepted one o f them before I would probably do i t w i t h them. - Previous o f f e r s . - p r e v i o u s b e h a v i o r o f other p l a y e r s . (v) Set 3 (Extreme d i f f e r e n c e s experiments) h i g h s . - Take o f f e r o f opponent who had l e s s t o g a i n . - I f l a t e i n t h e game and you had been doing business w i t h one man q u i t e s t e a d i l y I would t a k e h i s o f f e r , assuming t h e d i f f e r e n c e wasn't t o o much. - Previous o f f e r s t o t h e same booths and how e f f e c t i v e they had been i n b e t t e r i n g my p o s i t i o n . A l s o , how many b l u e buttons they had - I would g i v e t o t h e one w i t h t h e l e s s e r p i l e . - What d e a l s had gone on before? Was he a worth w h i l e c l i e n t ? Did he have enough buttons t o make t r a d i n g worth w h i l e ? - Whether o r not a good t r a n s a c t i o n had been made w i t h t h e o f f e r i n g p a r t y i n t h e p a s t , I would probably accept h i s o f f e r . - O f f e r s from t h a t l e t t e r before and t h e i r acceptance o f mine, s i z e o f p i l e ( i . e . , which one would g a i n l e s s from t h e transaction). - Previous d e a l i n g s w i t h t h e o f f e r e r . - Previous t r a d e s , f a v o u r a b l e o r n o t . - See how c l o s e t o becoming even, one p l a y e r was than another, i f he was l e a d i n g me and i t would help him I would not t r a d e . - Which one had enough buttons t o do more t r a d i n g w i t h . - Who had a l r e a d y been t r a d i n g w i t h me s a t i s f a c t o r i l y . - The k i n d o f p r e v i o u s d e a l i n g s I had had w i t h t h e d i f f e r e n t o f f e r e r s and whether i t would be i n my eventual i n t e r e s t s t o c u l t i v a t e one o r t h e o t h e r . - I take t h e f i r s t one I come t o . - How t h e two people i n v o l v e d had dealed p r e v i o u s l y and t h e s t a t u s o f t h e p i l e s a t t h e present t i m e . - probably accept from t h e person t o whom i t would do l e a s t good. - Previous o f f e r - i f o f f e r s were g e n e r a l l y b e t t e r o r more frequent from one, would accept, h i s . ( v i ) Set 3 (Extreme d i f f e r e n c e s experiments) lows. - Who you had been d e a l i n g w i t h w e l l b e f o r e . - Decide who had sent i n acceptable o f f e r o r accepted mine t h e most t i m e s .  -101-  S t r e n g t h o f others and t r a d e w i t h weaker. One o f t h e o f f e r s was from a p r e v i o u s l y f r i e n d l y o f f e r e r whereas t h e o t h e r one had r e j e c t e d my p r e v i o u s o f f e r . Past business. Which person t h e o f f e r would seem t o a i d most ( i . e . , not t r a d e w i t h him). I f I had b e n e f i t e d from one I would decide t o t a k e t h a t one o r i f I had not b e n e f i t e d I would choose the other. S i z e o f the p i l e s ( d e c l i n e l e t t e r w i t h l a r g e r p i l e he i s b u i l d i n g ) , past t r a d e s I f r e f u s e d o f f e r more t h a n once. The guy w i t h t h e g r e a t e s t d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e p i l e s would g e t the accept. I would l o o k at t h e two p i l e s o f t h e o f f e r e r s t o see who would g a i n l e a s t advantage by r e c e i v i n g my c h i p s . I f I had g o t t e n a s i m i l a r o f f e r from one o f t h e two b e f o r e . Previous d e a l e r s h i p . The one w i t h whom I have d e a l t before.  APPENDIX IX Table 11.  Coded R e s u l t s o f Comments E l i c i t e d by Post Experimental Question: I f you r e c e i v e d two o r more s i m i l a r o f f e r s a t t h e same t i m e , what f a c t o r s would you take i n t o account i n d e c i d i n g which one t o accept  Set 1: (No d i f f e r e n c e s experiments) Set 2: (Moderate - differences experiments) Set 3: (Extreme differences experiments)  Learning factors  Cognitive  (frequency o f past events mentioned)  (benefits that would accrue t o parties involved; sizes of piles; chance f o r f u t u r e t r a d e s mentioned)  h i g h - p o s i t i o n Ss l o w  _  p o s l t l o n  S s  8 5  2 4  highs  5  3  lows  5  2  highs  11  8  lows  9  6  43  25  factors  APPENDIX X RAW DATA I n i t i a t i o n s and Transactions Key t o n o t a t i o n :  e.g.  11 ol i-k b y a r  = = = = = = =  set 1, experiment 1 f i r s t o p p o r t u n i t y f o r exchange I made an o f f e r t o K blue buttons y e l l o w buttons o f f e r was accepted o f f e r was r e j e c t e d  I l o l i - k l 5 b 2 0 y a = i n experiment 1 d u r i n g the f i r s t o p p o r t u n i t y f o r exchange I made an o f f e r t o K o f 15 blue buttons f o r 20 y e l l o w buttons which was accepted by K. Set 1:  (No I n i t i a l Net Resource Imbalances Between Subjects)  Iloli-kl5b20ya Iloln-h30y30ba Ilo2n-i30y29ba Ilo2i-hl5b20yr Ho3k-g25y25ba Ilo3i-hl5b20yr Ilo4k-i30y30ba Ilo4n-i20y20br llo5n-h28y26ba Ilo5j-n29b30ya Ilo6g-128b20ya Ilo6k-g21y20ba Ilo7h-n30b29ya Ilo7m-j30y30ba 12oln-h30y25ba 12olm-g30y30br 12o2i-k30b30ya 12o2k-j30y30ba 12o3i-k30b30ya 12o3n-g30y30ba 12o4i-k30b30ya 12o41-i30b30yr 12o5k-j20y30ba 12o5n-i30y30ba 12o6n-j30y30ba 12o6m-g30y30ba  Ilolh-n30b28ya Ilolg-m30b30yr Ilo2h-k30b29ya Ilo2j-126b30yr Ilo3m-h30y30ba Ilo31-jl0y20br Ilo4h-m30b29ya llo4l-h!3y21br Ilo5k-j21y20ba llo51-H3y21br Ilo6n-illyl0ba Ilo6l-g20y30br Ilo7j-127b30ya Ilo7g-n21b20yr 12olg-130b30ya 12olk-h30y30br 12o2n-i30y25ba 12o2h-k30bl00yr 12o3m-h30y30ba 12o3g-125b30yr 12o4k-I30y30ba 12o4j-k30b30yr 12o5m-g30y30ba 12o5i-k30b30ya 12o6g-m30b30ya 12o6h-m30b30ya  Ilolj-m30b30ya Ilolm-j30y40br Ilo21-gl0y20ba Ilo2m-i30y40br Ilo3j-n26b30ya Ilo3h-130b29yr Ho4g-k25b25ya Ilo4j-k26y30br Ho5m-g25y22ba Ilo5i-nl0bl3yr Ilo6h-n30b29ya Ilo6m-i30y29br Ilo7n-g20yl9ba Ilo71-h20y28br 12olj-n30b30ya 12oli-120b20yr 12o2j-n30b30ya 12o21-i30b28yr 12o3j-130b30ya 12o3h-130b50yr 12o4n-h30y30ba 12o4h-m30b50yr 1205h-n30b30ya 12o5g-130b30yr 12o6i-k30b30ya 12o6j-130b30ya  Iloll-I30y30ba Ilolk-I20y25br Ilo2g-130bl5ya Ilo2k-j25y30br l l o 3 n - j 20y20ba Ilo3g-ml0b20yr Ilo4i-127b30ya Ilo4m-jl0yl5br Ilo5h-k30b29ya Ilo5g-k30b30yr Ilo6j-k20b20ya llo6 Ilo7k-120y20ba llo7 12olh-n30b50yr 12oll-m27y30br 12o2m-j25y25ba 12o2g-4n25b30yr 12o31-I30b30ya 12o3k-g30y30br 12o4g-m30b30ya 12o4m-I30y30br 12o5j-I30b30ya 12o51-g30b30yr 12o6k-i30y30ba 12o6l-j30b30yr  -104-  12o71-i30y30ba  12o7i-k30b30yr 13oln-g25y25ba 13olj-125b20yr 13o2h-k30b30ya 13o2g-l40b30ya  13o3h-130b30ya 13o3j-mlObllya 13o4k-130y30ba 13o4j-n30b30yr 13o5n-j30y30ba  13o5h-n30b30ya 13o6l-h20y20ba 13o6k-i29y30br 13o7h-m20b20ya  13o7k-j30y30ba  I4olk-j30y30ba I4oli-k30b30yr I4o21-g30y30ba I4o2g-k30b25ya I4o3m-j30y30ba I4o3k-g25y30ba I4o4j-130b30ya I4o4g-130b30yr I4o5m-i30y30ba I4o5k-i25y30br 1.4o6h-k30b30ya I4o6m-g25y30ba I4o7g-m25b20ya I4o7m-g25y30br 15olg-m30b30ya 15oll-g30y30ba 15o2g-m30b30ya 15o2m-g30y30br 15o3k-g30y30ba 15o3i-k30b29ya 15o4g-m30b30ya 15o4h-130b30ya 15o5h-k30b30ya 15o5i-m30b30ya 15o6m-130y30ba 15o6g-h28y30ba 15o71-gl0yl0ba 15o7i-g 6y 6br I6oli-130b26ya I6oln-h20y20ba I6o2k-j30y30ba I6o2i-n30b27ya I6o3i-m30b28ya I6o31-g30y30ba I6o4j-m30b30ya I6o4m-i30y30ba  12o7n-g30y30ba 12o7k-120y30br 13olg-m30b30ya 13olm-g30y35br 13o2n-i30y30ba 13o2k-g20y25br 13o3k-h30y30ba 13o3g-130b40yr 13o4h-n30b30ya 13o4m-120y20br 13o5j-k30b25ya 13o5k-j29y30br 13o6n-g25y25ba 13o6j-k30b30yr 13o7j-n30b30ya 13o7m-n 8y 7br I4olm-h30y30ba I4olg-n30b30yr I4o2k-h30y30ba I4o2m-h30y30br I4o3h-130b30ya I4o3j-n29b30ya I4o4l-h30y30ba I4o4m-j30y30br I4o5n-j30b21ya I4o51-i30y30br I4o6j-130b30ya I4o6k-i30y30br I4o7k-j30y30ba I4o7j-m24b30yr 15oli-130b30ya 15olh-ml5bl8yr 15o2,i-n30b35ya 15o2k-g30y35br 15o3m-i30y30ba 15o3n-h30y33br 15o4i-n30b29ya 15o4l-g30y30ba 15o5n-j30y25ba 15o5m-i30y30ba 15o6h-130b30ya 15o6i-m30b30ya 15o7n-j30y26ba 15o7j-k20b25yr I6olk-j30y30ba I6olj-k20b20ya I6o2h-m30b30ya I6o2g-n30b30yr I6o3k-130y30ba I6o3h-n30b30yr I6o4l-g30y30ba I6o4h-m30b30yr  12o7g-130b30ya 12o7j-125b30yr 13olh-130b30ya 13olk-j20y30br 13o2m-jl0yllba 13o2i-k30b30yr 13o3i-n30b30ya 13o3m-j20y20br 13o4n-h30y30ba 13o4i-130b30yr 13o5iHTi30b30ya  13o51-j30y30br 13o6g-k30b20ya 13o6m-g30y31br 13o71-il0yl0ba 13o7g-n25b30yr I4olh-k30b30ya I4oll-h30y20br I4o2h-n30b30ya I4o2i-k30b28yr I4o3g-k20b20ya I4o31-130b25yr I4o4n-j30y20ba I4o4k-g20y23br I4o5g-m30b25ya I4o5j-m25b30yr I4o6n-i20yl5ba I4o6g-n25b20yr I4o7h-k30b30ya I4o7i-m30b30yr 15olk-h30y30ba 15olm-h25y25br 15o2n-g30y30ba 15o2i-m30b30yr 15o31-h30y30ba 15o3j-n25b35yr 15o4k-h30y30ba 15o4j-m25b35yr 15o51-g30y30ba 15o5k-j30y35br 15o6l-gl0yl0ba 15o6j-m20b25yr 15o7g-k28b30yr 15o7h-k20b30yr I6olm-130y30ba l6olh-m39b39ya I6o21-g30y30ba I6o2j-n30b30yr I6o3ffl-h30y30ba I6o3g-k30b28yr I6o4g-n30b28ya I6o4i-k30b28yr  12o7m-g30y30br 12o7h-kl5bl5yr 13oll-h30yl0ba 13oli-130b30yr 13o21-g30y30ba 13o2j-k20b20yr 13o3n-j30y30ba 13o31-j20y30br 13o4l-i20y20br 13o4g-m30b20yr 13o5m-g25y28ba 13o5j-m30b30yr 13o6hnii30b30ya 13o6i-m30b30yr 13o7i-k30b30ya 13o7n-h30y30br I4oln-g20yl0ba I4olj-k20b20yr I4o2j-ra30b30ya l4o2n-g25yl5br I4o3n-130yl0ba I4o31-i30y50br I4o4h-k30b30ya I4o4i-130b20yr I4o5i-130b20ya I4o5h-125b30yr I4o6i-n30b20ya I4o6l-130y30br I4o71-g20y20ba I4o7h-i30y25ba 15olj-k30b25ya 15ol 15o2h-n22b25yr  15o2  15o3g-n30b30ya 15o3h-m29b30yr 15o4m-i30y30ba 15o4n-129y30br 15o5g-130b30ya 15o5j-g25b35yr 15o6n-j30y26ba 15o6k-130y32br 15o7k-i30y30br 15o7m-il5yl5br I6oll-g30y30ba I6olg-m30b25yr I6o2n-j30y30ba I6o2m-g30y30br I6o3j-n30b30ya I6o3n-i30y30br I6o4k-j30y30ba I6o4n-j30y30br  -105-  I6o5k-g30y30ba I6o5n-g30y30br I6o6m-h30y30ba I6o6g-k30b30ya I6o7j-130b30ya !6o7i-k25b25yr  I6o5m-h30y30ba I6o51-g30y30br I6o6h-m30b30ya I6o6k-j30y30ba I6o7n-g30y30ba I6o7g-130b30yr  I6o5i-n30b28ya I6o5j-130b30yr I6o6j-n30b30ya I6o6i-130b28yr I6o7k-h20y20ba I6o71-m30y30br  I6o5g-k30b30ya I6o5h-k30b30yr I6o6n-i30y30ba I6o6l-j30y30br I6o7m-i30y30ba I6o7h-m30b30yr  -106-  Set 2:  (Moderate I n i t i a l Net Resource Imbalances Between S u b j e c t s )  21oll-i25y25ba 21oln-h35y30br 21o2j-m25b30ya 21o2m-g30y30br 21o31-g20y20ba 21o3m-125y20ba 21o4l-g20y20ba 21o4k-h25y25ba 21o5k-h25y25ba 21o5j-m30b35ya 21o6l-g20y20ba 21o6m-i30y30br 21o7h-120b25ya 21o7m-i20y25br 22olg-n25b25ya 22oll-j25yl5ba 22o2h-ml9b20ya 22o2k-g25y25ba 22o3h-g25y25ba 22o3m-h20yl9ba 22o4k-i25y25ba 22o4g-125b25ya 22o5j-k25b25ya 22o5k-j25y25ba 22o6i-n20b20ya 22o6m-j35y32ba 22o71-i25y23ba 22o7k-120y25br 23olm-I35y35ba 23olk-hl0y37br 23o2j-m35b35ya 23o2m-j35y35ba 23o3i-n35b35ya 23o3j-m35b40yr 23o4i-n35b35ya 23o4l-j20y25ba 23o5i-n35b35ya 23o5n-h20y25ba 23o6i-n35b35ya 23o6h-m 5 b l 0 y r 23o71-h20y25ba 23o7g-k25b25yr 24oli-120b20ya 24olm-j32y30br 24o2h-n25b25ya 24o2j-k20b25yr 24o3g-n25b25ya 24o3n-i20yl5ba 24o4j-n25b25va 24o4n-i20y20br  21olj-n35b35ya 21olh-n25b25yr 21o2g-120b20ya 21o2i-m20b25yr 2lo3h-j35y30ba 21o3h-m25b25ya 21o4n-j35y30ba 21o4h-125b25yr 21o5g-n20b20ya 21o5h-k25b25ya 21o6g-120b20ya 21o6i-m20b25yr 21o71-g20y20ba 21o7k-h25y25br 22oli-120b20ya 22oln-h30y30br 22o2j-k25b20ya 22o2i-m20b25yr 22o3g-m25b25ya 22o3h-123b24ya 22o4h-n24b25ya 22o4m-i20y20br 22o51-g25y24ba 22o5i-m35b35yr 22o6g-m23b25ya 22o6k-g20y25br 22o7j-125b25ya 22o7i-110bl0yr 23olg-125b25ya 23oli-135b30yr 23o21-h25y25ba 23o2k-g20y50br 23o3m-j35y35ba 23o3k-hl0y25br 23o4m-i35y35ba 23o4n-jl0yl5br 23o5m-i35y35ba 23o51-g25y20ba 23o6l-j20y25ba 23o6m-g25y30br 23o7h-kl5bl5ya 23o7m-g25y25br 24olh-ml0bl0ya 24olk-j25y25br 24o2i-m30b25ya 24o21-m25y52br 24o3k-g25y23ba 24o3j-115b20yr 24o4g-k23b25ya 24o4l-h20y25br  21olk-h25y25ba 21o3jn-g20y30br 21o2k-h25y25ba 21o21-i20y20br 21o3i-n20b25ya 21o3gHii25b25yr 21o4j-n30b35ya 21o4m-i30y30br 21o5h-j35y30ba 21o5m-g20y25br 21o6k-h25y25ba 21o6n-g20y20br 2lo7h-j35y30ba 21o7i-n20b25yr 22o]m-h20yl5ba 22olh-nl5bl8yr 22o2n-j25y25ba 22o21-j20yl8br 22o3i-n25b20ya 22o3j-k25b20ya 22o4j-k25b25ya 22o4i-nl5bl8yr 22o5n-i35y30ba 22o5h-m25b25yr 22o6n-i30y30ba 22o6l-j25y24ba 22o7hnn20b20ya 22o7g-m20b25yr 23oln-j35y35ba 23oll-i25y25br 23o2n-i35y35ba 23o2g-m25b25yr 23o3h-m25b25ya 23o3g-k20b30yr 23o4j-m35b35ya 23o4h-nl0bl5yr 23o5h-110bl0ya 23o5g-kl5b25yr 23o6n-j20y25br 23o6k-jl5y25br 23o7k-g25y25ba 23o7j^n35b35yr 24oll-g25y25ba 24olg-ml0bl5yr 24o2g-125b25ya 24o2m-i20y20br 24o3m-h25y20ba 24o31-g25y25br 24o4k-i24y23br 24o4h-m20b25yr  21oli-120b20ya 21olg-n25b25yr 21o2h-i35y30br 21o2h-j25b25yr 21o3k-h25y25ba 21o3j-k25b35yr 21o4g-120b20ya 21o4i-nl0bl5yr 21o51-g20y20ba 21o5i-120b27yr 21o6h-^i25b25ya 21o6j-ml5b20yr 21o7g-n20b20ya 21o7j-nl5b20yr 22olj-k25b20ya 22olk-i20y35br 22o2g-125b25ya 22o2m-j20y20br 22o3k-j20y25ba 22o31-i25y20br 22o4l-h25y21ba 22o4n-k25y25br 22o5g-n25b25ya 22o5m-i35y32br 22o6h-k25b25ya 22o6j-130b30yr 22o7m-i20y25br 22o7n-g35y30br 23olh-nl0b20ya 23olj-n20b40yr 23o2i-n35b35ya 23o2h-kl0b20yr 23o31-g20y25ba 23o3n-g35y40br 23o4g-kl5b25ya 23o4k-il0y20br 23o5j-m35b35ya 23o5k-ml5y25br 23o6j-n35b35yr 23o6g-n25b25yr 23o7i-n35b35ya 23o7n-g 5 y l 0 b r 24olj-110bl5yr 24oln-i25y30br 24o2n-j25y25br 24o2k-i25y25br 24o3j^n35b35ya 24o3h-k20b25yr 24o4i-k20b25yr 24o4m-h35y35br  -107-  24o51-i24y25ba 24o5h-n25b25ya 24o6k-±l4yl4ba 24o6j-k30b30yr 24o7m-j30y30ba 24o7h-n25b25yr 25olh-nl0bl0ya 25olg-m50b50yr 25o2n-j30y25ba 25o21-h20y20br 25o3j-135b25ya 25o3h-ml5b25ya 25o4n-j35y27ba 25o4h-kl5b25yr 25o5k-125yl5ba 25o51-g25y25br 25o6m-h30y20ba 25o6l-k25b25yr 25o7k-125y24ba 25o7g-n25b24ya 26oll-g20y25ba 26oln-hl5yl3ba 26o2i-n35b35ya 26o2g-n20b30yr 26o3g-k20b25ya 26o3h-kl0bl3yr 26o4m-j35y35ba 26o4n-j35y35br 26o5n-h25y20ba 26o5k-i25y30br 26063-m35b35ya 26o6m-j35y35ba 26o7j-m35b35ya 26o71-n35b35yr  24o5g-n23b25ya 24o5jnn20b22yr 24o6l-g25y30ba 24o6n-g30y32br 24o71-hl5yl5ba 24o71-130b33yr 25olk-g20yl8ba 25oln-gl5yl0br 25o2h-ml0bl5ya 25o2j-m35b30yr 25o3n-g30y25ba 25o3k-g22y21br 25o4l-m35b35ya 25o4m-h20yl5br 25o5g-k25b24ya 25o51-135b35yr 25o6j-m35b25ya 25o6g-k25b23yr 25o7m-j35y25ba 25o7i-m35b35yr 26olj-n35b35ya 26oll-135b35yr 26o2h-m25b23ya 26o2j-n35b35yr 26o3i-n35b33ya 26o31-jl5y25br 26o4l-n35b35ya 26o4l-i20y25br 26o5g-k20b25ya 26o51-h25y25br 26o6n-135y35ba 26o6k-gl3yl5ba 26o71-g20y20ba 26o7n-j35y32br  24o5k-hl5yl5ba 24o5n-j30y31br 24o6h-m25b25ya 24o6g-k25b30yr 24o7k-il8yl7ba 24o7g-n25b30yr 25olm-g30y30br 25oll-g25y25br 25o2k-g20yl8ba 25o2m-j20y20br 25o31-k25b25ya 25o3g-lllbl0yr 25o4k-125y24ba 25o4g-n25b26yr 25o5n-g33y26ba 25o5m-g25y20br 25o6n-j35y28ba 25o6l-i25y25br 25o7h-120b20ya 25o7n-133y26br 26olm-j35y35ba 26olk-125y45br 26o2h-120yl8ba 26o2m-h35y35br 26o3k-h25yl5ba 26o3n-j30y27br 26o4k-h25yl5br 26o4j-135b35yr 26o5i-n35b35ya 26o5J-135b35yr 26o6g-120b25ya 26o6l-j25y25br 26o7m-j35y35ba 26o7g-ml5b20yr  24o5m-g30y25ba 24o6m-g20y20br 24o6l-kl0bl3yr 24o7j-n25b25ya 24o7n-h30y32br 25oll-n35b35yr 25olj-n35b35yr 25o2i-n35b35ya 25o2g-k25b26yr 25o3m-i30y20ba 25o31-125y25br 25o4j-135b25ya 24o4l-j25y25br 25o5j-n35b25ya 25o5h-nl5b25yr 25o6k-125y24ba 25o6h-m20b25yr 25o7j-m35b25ya 25o71-j25y25br 26olg-m25b25ya 26olh-n25b25yr 26o21-h20y25ba 26o2k-j20y30br 26o3m-j35y35ba 26o3j-n35b35yr 26o4g-n20b25yr 26o4h-jl3yl8br 26o5m-j35y35ba 26o6l-n35b35ya 26o6h-m 2b 2yr 26o7k-gl3yl5br 26o7  -108-  Set 3:  (Extreme I n i t i a l Net Resource Imbalances Between S u b j e c t s )  31oln-j30y35ba 31olk-jl0yl5br 31o2j-n30b35ya 31o2i-n30b40yr 31o3n-j40b40ya 31o3h-kl7b20ya 31o4j-n35b40ya 31o4k-il5y20br 31o5j-m40b40ya 31o51-il5yl5br 31o6n-i40y40ba 31o6j-nl0bl5yr 31o7i-n40b40ya 31o7j-ml0bl5yr 32olg-ml5bl8ya 32olj-n40b40yr 32o2m-i30y40ba 32o2k-j20y20ba 32o31-hl9y20ba 32o3k-j20yl9ba 32o4m-i40y40ba 32o4g-ml0bl5yr 32o5i-m40b40ya 32o5j-m60b40yr 32o6m-i40y40ba 32o6n-j40y38ba 32o7h-120b20ya 32o7m-i40y40ba 33olj-m30b30ya 33olg-m20b20yr 33o2j-n40b40ya 33o2i-m40b40ya 33o3h-n20b20ya 33o3j-m40b40ya 33o4k-g20y20ba 33o4h-j40y40br 33o5g-k20b20ya 33o51-jl0yl0br 33o6k-g20y20ba 33o6i-n40b40ya 33o7h-110bl5ya 33o7m-i25y25br 34olk-il7y20ba 34olm-h40y39br 34o2m-i40y38ba 34o2i-n25b25ya 34o3j-k20b20ya 34o3k-i20y20ba 34o4l-h20y20ba 34o4g-k20b20yr  31olg-n20b20ya 31olm-g40y40br 31o2g-m20b25ya 31o2h-i30y40ba 31o3g-120b20ya 31o3j-m40b40ya 31o4l-g20y20ba 31o4i-n30b40yr 31o5m-j40y40ba 31o5h-kl5b20yr 31o6g-kl5bl5ya 31o6l-i20y20br 31o7n-j35y38br 31o7h-nl8b20yr 32olh-n20b20ya 32olm-j40yl00br 32o2j-m40b40ya 32o2n-j20y25br 32o3n-g20y20ba 32o3h-k20b20ya 32o4k-j20y20ba 32o4n-i30y37br 32o5m-i40y40ba 32o5h-m20b20yr 32o6i-m40b40ya 32o6g-n 5b 4yr 32o7j-m40b30ya 32o7k-i20yl7br 33olh-i40y40ba 33oll-il5yl5br 33o21-h20yl0ba 33o2m-j20y20ba 33o3m-i40y40ba 33o3k-jl5y20br 33o4m-j40y40ba 33o4l-gl0yl0br 33o5i-m40b40ya 33o5h-k20b20yr 33o6m-i40y40ba 33o6g-k20b20ya 33o7i-n40b40ya 33o7k-il5y20br 34oli-n25b20ya 34olh-kl5b20yr 34o21-g20y20ba 34o2j-m20b20yr 34o31-h20y20ba 34o3m-j40y38ba 34o4h-k20bl5ya 34o4i-k30b30yr  31olj-m40b40ya 31oll-j20y25br 31o2k-gl5yl5ba 31o21-i20y20br 31o3i-n30b40ya 31o3m-i30y30ba 31o4m-j40y40ba 31o4g-nl5b20yr 31o5k-hl6y20ba 31o5n-i35y38ba 31o6i-m35b40ya 31o6m-i30y30br 31o7g-n20b20yr 31o7k-jl8y20br 32oln-I25yl0ba 32olk-I20y20br 32o21-g20y20ba 32o2g^nl5bl7yr 32o3g-nl5bl8ya 32o3m-i35y40br 32o4h-120b20ya 32o4l-jl6yl9br 32o5n-j30y30ba 32o5k-j20y20br 32o6h-n20b20ya 32o6j-n60b40yr 32o71-g20y20ba 32o7g-m20bl4yr 33olk~jl5y20br 33olh-nl5b20yr 33o2n-j40y40ba 33o2k-h20y20br 33o3g-k20b20ya 33o3i-kl5b25yr 33o4j-n40b40ya 33o4h-ml0b20yr 33o5m-j30y30ba 33o5k-il5y20br 33o6j-110blOya 33o6l-hlOylObr 33o7g-k20b20ya 33o71-il0yl0br 34oln-j40y40ba 34olj-n20b25yr 34o2h-j40y40ba 34o2h-n20b20yr 34o3g-120b20ya 34o3h-120b20yr 34o4m-j40y39ba 34o4k-hl8y20br  31olinn30b40yr 31olh-n20b40yr 31o2m-j40y40ba 31o2h-ml0b20yr 31o3k-hl0yl0ba 31o31-i20yl5br 31o4h-H5b20ya 31o4n-j35y40br 31o5i-130b40ya 31o5gnn20b20yr 31o6h-nl5b20ya 31o6k-gl7y20br 31o71-i20y25br 31o7m-i30y30br 32oll-i20y20br 32oli-n40b40yr 32o2i-n20b20ya 32o2h-m20b20yr 32o3i-m30b30ya 32o3j-m30b25yr 32o4i-n20b20ya 32o4j-k40b40yr 32o51-i20y20br 32o5g-nl5b20yr 32o6l-h20y20ba 32o6k-j20yl8br 32o7i-n40b40ya, 32o7h-j40y43br 33oli-m25b25yr 33olm-i30y30br 33o2g-120bl9ya 33o2h-m20b20yr 33o31-jl0yl0ba 33o3n-i40y40br 33o4g-120b20ya 33o4i-120b25yr 33o5j-n40b40ya 33o5h-g40y40br 33o6n-h20y20ba 33o6h-n20b20yr 33o7n-i40y40ba 33o7j-m20b20yr 34olg-n20b20yr 34oll-j20y20br 34o2g-m20b20ya 34o2k-gl7y20br 34o3i-n30b30ya 34o3n-j40y40br 34o4n-h30y30br 34o4j-k20b20yr  -109-  34o5h-kl9b20ya 34o5i-m25b25ya 34o6i-kl7b20ya 34o6h-i20y25br 34o7k-h20y20ba 34o7h-m20b22yr 35oli-m30b30ya 35olg-ml5bl5yr 35o2m-i40y20ba 35o2h-120b20yr 35o3h-k20bl5ya 35o3h-i40y40ba 35o4h-120b20ya 35o4l-120y20br 35o5m-h40y30ba 35o51-k 8bl0ya 35o6g-120b20ya 35o6j-n40b40ya 35o7h-120b20ya 35o7i-k 5bl0yr 36olm-j40yl5ba 36olh-j40y40br 36o2i-n40b40ya 36o2n-h20y20ba 36o3j-125bl5ya 36o3h-i40y40ba 36o4g-k20bl5ya 36o4h-i40y40ba 36o51-g20yl5ba 36o5h-m20b20ya 36o6j-m30b25ya 36o6k-g20y20ba 36o7g-110bl5ya 36o71-h20yl5ba 37oll-j20y20ba 37olm-j40y50br 37o2h-i40y38ba 37o2h-ml0b20yr 37o3m-j40y30ba 37o31-H5y20br 37o4h-jl0yl0ba 37o4l-gl5yl6br 37o5j-m40b40ya 37o5h-ml4b20yr 37o6l-kl4bl5ya 37o6j-n40b40ya 37o7m-j40y40ba 37o7h-i40y40ba 38oll-110y20ba 38olh-j40y40br 38o2k-g20y20ba 38o2g-kl5bl5ya  34o5j-n20b20ya 34o5k-ll8y20ba 34o6j-m20bl9ya 34o6h-n20b25yr 34o7h-j40y40ba 34o7g-m20b25yr 35olk-jl0yl2ba 35oln-j30y40br 35o21-j20y20ba 35o2k-gl0yl5br 35o3k-h20y25ba 35o31-jl9y20br 35o4j-n40b40ya 35o4m-h40y35br 35o5h-m20b20ya 35o5g-m20b20yr 35o6k-g20y20ba 35o6n-i40y40ba 35o7j-n40b40ya 35o7g-n20b20yr 36oli-m40b40ya 36olg-ml0bl0yr 36o2k-i20y20ba 36o2g-hl0bl0yr 36o3h-k20b20ya 36o31-g20yl5ba 36o4i-m40b40ya 36o4l-g20y20ba 36o5h-l40y40ba 36o5m-j35y40br 36o6g-k20b20ya 36o6h-i40y40br 36o7i-ml0bl0ya 36o7h-jl5y20br 37olj-m40b40ya 37olg-m20y20br 37o2g-n20b20ya 37o2ra-i40y30br 37o3b-kl0bl2ya 37o3k-i20y20br 37o4n-137y39ba 37o4j-k40b40yr 37o51-h20y20ba 37o5m-g40y25br 37o6g-m20b30ya 37o6l-119y20br 37o7h-k20b20ya 37o7g-H0bl0ya 38olj-m40b35ya 38olg-ml0bl5yr 38o2m-j30y30ba 38o21-il0y20br  34o51-g20y20ba 34o5h-g30y30br 34o6l-h20y20ba 34o6k-jl9y20br 34o7j-n20b20ya 34o7i-125b25yr 35olj-n30b30ya 35olh-m20b30yr 35o2g-120b20ya 35o2j-m35b35yr 35o3i-m40b40ya 35o3m-j35y35br 35o4h-i40y40ba 35o4k-110yl3br 35o5j-n40b40ya 35b51-h20y20br 35o6i-k 8bl0ya 35o6l-m20y20br 35o7m-j25y25ba 35o7n-i40y40br 36olh-n20b20ya 36oll-jl5y20br 36o2m-j35y40ba 36o21-h20y20br 36o3k-j20y20ba 36o3m-i35y40br 36o4m-j35y40ba 36o4j-m20b20yr 36o5i-n40b40ya 36o5j-n20bl5yr 36o6i-nl5bl5ya 36o6l-g20y20br 36o7k-j20y20ba 36o7h-k20b20yr 37olh-n 5b40yr 37oln-g40y40br 37o2j-m40b40ya 37o2k-gl0yllbr 37o3j-n40b40ya 37o3g-H0bllyr 37o4g-m20b20ya 37o4m-h40y30br 37o5g-n20b20ya 37o5k-i 8yl0br 37o6k-gl0yl0ba 37o6h-nl9b20yr 37o7j-n40b40ya 37o7k-glOylObr 38olh-n20b20ya 38oli-nl0b40yr 38o2j-n35b40ya 38o2h-115bl5yr  34o5g-l20b20ya 34o5m-n20y20br 34o6g-120b20ya 34o6m-120y20ba 34o71-120y20br 35oll-120y20ba 35olm-j39y25br 35o2i-m35b35y 35o2n-i30y30br 35o3g-n20b20ya' 35o3j-k32b35yr 35o4g-k20b20ya 35o4i-kl0bl5yr 35o5n-i40y40ba 35o5 35o6m-j20y20ba 35o6h-ml5b20yr 35o7k-i 8yl0br 35o71-h20y20br 36olk-120y20ba 36olj-m20b20yr 36o2h-m20b20ya 36o2j-n30b25yr 36o3i-n40b40ya 36o3g-120bl0yr 36o4h-110bl0ya 36o4k-jl8y20br 36o5k-j20y20ba 3605 36o6m-j40y35ba 36o6h-m20b20yr 36o7j-n25b20ya 36o7m-j40y40br 37olk-hl0yl0br 3701 37o21-g20y20ba 3702 37o3n-h37y39ba 3703 37o4i-k32b32yr 37o4h-n30b32yr 37o5n-g37y39br 37o5i-l 2b 3yr 37o6m-j40y40ba 37o6n-j40y40br 37o71-g20y20ba 37o7 38olm-j40y40ba 38olk-j20y20br 38o2h-120y20ba 38o21-kl0b30yr  -110-  38o3k-h20y20ba 38o3n-j23y20ba 38o4n-130y25ba 38o4l-glOylOba 38o5m-i35y30ba 38o5k-gl5y20br 38o6g-nl5bl5ya 38o6h-i30y25br 38o7m-i25y20ba 38o71-gl0yl0ba  38o3m-i40y40ba 38o31-jl0yl0br 38o4k-h20y20ba 38o4m-i40b40yr 38o5h-110bl0ya 38o5g-ml5bl5yr 38o6k-h20y20ba 38o6l-il0yl0br 38o7h-110bl0ya 38o7j-n40b35ya  38o3h-110blOya 38o3i-120b40yr 38o4h-k20b20ya 38o4i-120b30yr 38o5j-m40b40ya 38o5n-120y20br 38o6m-130y25ba 38o6j-k40b35yr 38o7g-m20b20ya 38o7k-j20y25br  38o3j-m35b40ya 38o3g-115bl5yr 38o4j-n35b40ya 38o4g-kl5bl5yr 38o5i-n25b30ya 38o51-i20y20br 38o6h-k20b20ya 38o6l-135b40yr 38o7n-j30y25ba 38o7i-130b40yr  -111-  B.  Approve and Disapprove Votes  Key:  eg.  Set 1:  11 11 11 11 11 11  11 11 12 12 12 12 12* 12 13" 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14  15 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 16  m-g n-h i-m j-m k-j 1-g 1-k g-m j-k i-h m-h n-h g n k-h n-g m-g i-k g-m l-i 1-m n-j i-k j-m m-g k-m g-j l-i n-j n-m m-g j-k k-g k-m  j-1  j-m i-n n-g k-j 16 h-n  11 = set 1, experiment 1 a = approved d = disapproved 11 l - i d = a f t e r experiment 1 i n s e t 1, L indicated disapproval of I .  (No I n i t i a l Net Resource Imbalances Between S u b j e c t s ) d a d d a d a a d d d a a d a a a a a d a d d a a a d a d a d a a a d a a a a  11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 13  14 14 14 14 14 14 14  15 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 16  m-j a n-i d i-1 d k-g a h-n a 1-h d 1-n a g-k a j-1 a m-1 d n-g a l-i a k-i a h-m a n-h a m-j d i-1 d g-k a 1-g a 1-k d n-i a l-j d j-n a m-i a g-1 a g-h d h-k a n-g a n-k d m-j d j-m d k-i d k-1 a J-n a j-h d i-m a n-h d k-g a  11 m-h a 11 11 11 11 11 11 11  12 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 13  n-j i-n k-h h-1 l-i 1-m g-n j-n m-g n-j g-m k-g h-n n-j m-i i-m g-n 1-h k-j n-g i-h j-1 k-h g-m g-k  14 14 14 14 14 14 14 h-1 15 n-1 15 n - i 15 m-h 15 i-m 15 k-h 15 k-n 16 j - g 16 j - i 16 n - i 16 1-g 16 k-h  d d a d d a a a a a a d a a a a a a a a d a d d a d d d d d a a d d a d a  11 11 11 11 11 11 11  m-i n-g i-k k-i h-m l-j  g-1  d a a a a d d  12 i - k a 12 m-i a 12 n - i d 12 g-1 a 12 k-g a 12 h-k d 13 n-h a 13 m-h a 13 i - n a 13 l - j d 13 1-n a 14 14 14 14 14 14  i-n a i-1 a m-j d k-i d g-n d g-i a  15 15 15 15 15  n-h m-i j-n 1-g k-j  d a a a d  16 16 16 16 16  j-k i-k n-j k-i k-m  d d a d a  -112-  Set 2: j-n j-m i-h i-g l-h 21 g-n 22 m-i 21 21 21 21 21  22 22 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 23  24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25  25 25 25 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26  j-1  n-k i-m k-g k-h h-i m-j i-k n-j 1-j g-k i-k m-j l-h k-h g-l m-g n-g j-n g-n k-g h-n 1-i n-h n-j j-i m-j g-k h-j 1-g 1-m  (Moderate I n i t i a l Net Resource Imbalances Between S u b j e c t s ) a d a a d a d a d d a a a a a a a d a a a d a d d d a a d d a a d a a d a a  21 21 21 21 21  21 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23  m-j n-g i-l h-k 1-g g-m m-j n-i n-h g-l k-n k-m h-n m-i j-n n-g 1-k  24 24 24 24 24  i-l m-h 1-j k-g g-n 25 m-g 25 n-h 25 25 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26  j-1  g-k k-h h-1 1-g n-k n-1 j-1  m-h h-m h-g 1-i 1-n  d a a d d d a a a d a d a a d d d d d d d a a d a a d a d d a d d d a d a  21 21 21 21 21  m-g i-m i-j h-m 1-i  a d a a d  21 21 21 21 21  n-j i-n i-k h-n g-l  a a a d a  22 22 22 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23  j-k a n-j a n-1 a 1-j a k-1 a h-m a h-1 a m-g d j-1 d n-i a g-m a  22 22 22 22 22 22  j-m n-g i-n k-i k-j h-k  a a a d a a  23 23 23 23  i-n n-i l-h j-n  d a a d  24 24 24 24 24  i-g a n-g d 1-i a h-m a g-k a m-h a j-m a i-k a g-h a h-m a 1-j d  24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 25 25  i-n 1-g k-j h-n g-m m-j j-k I-m k-I h-k l-h  a a d d d a d d a d a  26 26 26 26 26 26 26  n-i j-m i-k g-n h-i h-k l-h  a a d d d a a  25 25 25 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26  n-m n-g j-n m-g  d a d d m-1 a h-n a 1-j d 1-k d  -113Set 3:  (Extreme I n i t i a l Net Resource Imbalances Between S u b j e c t s )  31 n-h d 31 i-m d 31 j - k d 31 1-m d 31 l - h a 31 h-m d 31 g-k a 31 k-h a 32 i - n a 32 j-m a 32 h-1 a 32 1-i d 32 g-n a 33 j-m a 33 j - g a 33 n - i a 33 i - n a 33 m-i d 33 g-k a 33 k-g a 34 j - n a 34 n-j a 34 i - k a 34 m-i d 34 h-n d 3-4 k-j a 35 m-i d 35 i - n a 35 j - k d 35 g - l a 35 h-1 d 36 j - n d 36 i - g a 36 i - j a 3 6 h-m d 36 h-g a 36 h-g d 37 n-h d 37 m-j a 37 g-n d 37 h-k a 38 j - n a 38 j-m a 38 j - k d 38 i - n a 38 1-i d 38 h-1 d  31 n-j 31 i - l 31 j - n 31 1-k 31 h-k 31 h - i 31 g-m  a d a a a d a  31 n - i 31 m-I 31 1-i 31 1-g 31 h-1 31 g-n 31 k-j  a d d d a d d  31 i - n 31 j-m 31 1-g 31 1-n 31 h-n 31 g - l 31 k-g  32 32 32 32  a a d a  32 i - l 32 k-j 32 h-m 32 1-g  a d d a  32 j - n d 32 k - i d 32 1-j d 32 g-m d  33 j - i a 33 j - k a 33 n-h a 33 i - k d 33 h-n d 33 g-m d 33 k-h d 34 j - k d 34 m-n d 34 i-m d 34 h-1 a 34 g-n d 34 k - i a 35 i - k a 35 j-1 d 35 n-j a 35 k - i d 35 l - h d 36 n-j d 36 i - n a 36 i-m a 36 h-n d 36 h-j a 36 k-g a 37 n - i a 37 k-g d 37 g-j d 37 h-1 d 38 j - k a 38 n - i d 38 i-m a 38 m-j d -38 l - h a  33 j - h d 33 n-g d 33 i-m a 33 m-j a 33 h-1 a 33 g-n d 33 k - i d 34 j-1 d 34 i - n d 34 m-j a 34 h-m d 34 k-h a  i-m j-k h-n l-h  33 j - n a 33 j-1 a 33 n-j a 33 i - l d 33 h-m d 33 g - l a 33 k-g d 34 j-m a 34 n-h d 34 i - l d 34 h-k a 34 g - l a 34 k-g d 35 m-j a 35 j - n a 35 n - i a 35 k-h a 35 1-g a 36 j - n a 36 n-1 a 36 i - h a 36 h - i d 36 h-1 a 36 k-j a 37 n-g d 37 m-i d 37 g-m a 37 h-m a 38 j - g a 38 j-1 a 38 n-g a 38 m-i a 38 1-g a 38 h-n a  ,  a a a d d a d  35 i-m a 35 j-m a 35 g-m d 35 h-m a 35 1-i d 36 n-h a 36 i - l a 36 i - k d 36 h-k a 36 l - h a 36 k - i a 37 n-j a 37 k-h a 37 h-n d 38 38 38 38 38  j-h n-j i-l k-h h-k  a a d a a  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0106730/manifest

Comment

Related Items