The rational choice perspective is a great way of understanding society and larger systems. When I read in our book how human behavior is based on self-interest and rational choices about effective ways to accomplish goals (Hutchison, 2008, p. 46), my past interactions made so much more sense. This is because human interaction involves trade of social resources, such as love, approval, information, money, and physical labor (Hutchison, 2008, p. 46). One is simply trying to maximize benefits, what you get, and minimize costs, what you lose. One’s values, norms, and expectations, as well as alternatives, influence the assessment of rewards and costs (Hutchison, 2008, p. 46). Reciprocity, “a pattern of mutually contingent exchange of gratifications” (Kolb, 2008, p.779), of exchange is essential to social life. We see this anywhere from holiday gift exchanges to a massive business deal. All theories in this perspective recognize power as deriving from unequal resources in the exchange process. “Some versions of rational choice theory emphasize the ways in which patterns of exchange lead to social exchanges and social injustices” (Hutchison, 2008, p. 49), but I see social exchange as based on self-interest, not in a selfish way. One weakness in this perspective could be that it assumes all people are rational and goal directed. Theories Social exchange theory starts with the proposition that social behavior is based on the desire to maximize benefits and minimize costs. A basic belief is that social relationships occur in a social marketplace in which people give in order to get. Persons with greater resources in a social exchange hold unacknowledged power over the others in the exchange (Hutchison, 2008, p. 46). Social exchange ... ... middle of paper ... ...son has been chosen and does not bear fruit or bears the wrong kind of fruit then that branch is thrown away and burned. I think this perspective is congruent with my faith in that one must choose to live in God’s truth consistently and faithfully, and the rewards are unfathomable. Conclusion The rational choice perspective is the view that human behavior reflects the belief that rational choices have more possible benefits, which is why people make choices based off self-interest and reaching their goals. This perspective is shown through social exchange theory, symbolic interaction theory, and social network theory. I was drawn to this perspective because I see it in my everyday encounters and I have seen how the related theories have influenced my view of society. I also found how my faith and values are congruent with this perspective, and how they conflict.
Kody Scott, later known as Shanyika Shakur, was born in Los Angeles in 1963. Before last imprisonment he committed various crimes, such as, robbery, assault, and murder. Kody’s childhood was pretty rough. He grew up as the fifth of six children in a broken home. His mother, Birdy Scott, worked odd jobs and long hours to support her children. While his father, Ernest Scott, left the family in 1970 and was completely out of Kody’s life by 1975. Shortly after completing sixth grade at Horace Mann, Kody joined a subgroup of the infamous L.A. Crips on June 15th, 1975. Kody committed his first murder on the night of his initiation. This would be the start of Kody’s descent into becoming “Monster Kody”. It was two years after his initiation that Kody first donned the name Monster. Scott had beaten a robbery victim so bad that the police said it was “The work of a
The Virtue, Utilitarianism, and Deontological concepts all have something in a common. Each one of these three concepts concentrates on an individual’s actions leading to various options, in addition to how the options affected others. The variations within each of these concepts are who engaged and was impacted by those options. The Virtue concept concentrates on an individual's character. One could stay in their lifestyle by seeking quality in everything they and others do (Boylan, 2009). The Utilitarianism concept considers that an activity, which is created to the advantage of a team, is fairly appropriate, if it delivers the biggest advantage to that team (Boylan, 2009). Utilitarianism is frequently known through the motto, “The biggest excellent for the biggest variety (Boylan, 2009).” between the three theories, Deontology is the most different. This concept moves around ones choice to control. Deontologists create options depending on understanding that something is right without concern to the higher excellent of others (Boylan, 2009).
Emerson, E. M. (1976) Social Exchange Theory. Annual Review of Sociology Vol. 2 (pp. 335-362)
I feel that model is the best fit “beyond rational” because people be aware from learning. In addition, challenges are considered different in communities. I see my life and my behavior changed. I can decide what is the best for my family and me. I become able to teach people who face the same problem that I faced and educate them how to accept every thing in better
Mark Overvold (1980) argues that preferentist theories of value have trouble accommodating the view that agents can deliberately choose to perform actions that can be described as self-sacrifice. This essay will examine Overvold's article, and explain the problems that preferentism has with the idea of self-sacrifice.
In regards to rational choice theory, my opinion lies somewhere in between believer and nonbeliever. The research that supports both the theory’s merits and limitations appears to be minimal and lacking true empirical evidence. However, I believe there is reasoning for all we do and all that is done. With that being said, I would have to say that I am a believer of rational choice theory. It is my belief and personal opinion, that even when making choices irrationally, our actions can, to some degree be rationalized.
The decision-making model not as simple as selfish or self-interest, it’s the “theory of human choice based on scientific principles of observation and experiment”, but not “postulation and deduction” (page 397). Observation reflects it has been learned or acknowledged from patient look or research about the cause and effect, experiment means it has been thought, be consider the pros and cons. Even though it might not be think over and think through, it must be different than “creating something out of nothing”. There are four princi...
Rational choice theory, developed by Ronald Clarke and Derek Cornish in 1985, is a revival of Cesare Becca...
Criminals have been committing crimes for centuries, and they are always fooling the police detectives and federal agencies sometimes. If the justice departments would actually look at the persons thought processes and reasoning before a crime is committed, the justice departments will be able to answer the reason for the crime. The different departments could possibly figure out why the criminal did what they did in the first. For instance, they should use a couple of criminology theories to help them with certain cases that are more difficult than the rest. The theories that the justice departments should use in their systems are the rational choice and biological theories of criminology.
Every human being carries with them a moral code of some kind. For some people it is a way of life, and they consult with their code before making any moral decision. However, for many their personal moral code is either undefined or unclear. Perhaps these people have a code of their own that they abide to, yet fail to recognize that it exists. What I hope to uncover with this paper is my moral theory, and how I apply it in my everyday life. What one does and what one wants to do are often not compatible. Doing what one wants to do would usually bring immediate happiness, but it may not benefit one in the long run. On the other hand, doing what one should do may cause immediate unhappiness, even if it is good for oneself. The whole purpose of morality is to do the right thing just for the sake of it. On my first paper, I did not know what moral theories where; now that I know I can say that these moral theories go in accordance with my moral code. These theories are utilitarianism, natural law theory, and kantianism.
Though constantly confused, needs and wants are the driving force behind every decision. It is virtually impossible to make a decision without analyzing the needs and wants of every person affected by that decision. However, countless decisions in today’s society are only directed towards what will benefit the decision-maker. In those cases, the influence of needs and wants is amplified because the decision-maker fears damage to his reputation. As an effect, his want for an unblemished reputation will drive nearly every one of his decisions. Such is the case for most people. Their desire to satisfy their needs and wants, not those of others, drives the decisions they make. Therefore, all of the choices and decisions in life are driven by needs and wants.
The second example of when this case study involves the rational choice perspective is when Danny lied to Laura about having the job at GM. Danny used his rational thinking that if he told Laura he had a good job, that she would stay with Danny. Danny was desperate at this point and attempted to make Laura and the children stay. In his mind, he had to lie in order to gain his reward. He believed that the benefit of him saying he had a job would make his marriage
One form is generalized reciprocity, which is the giving of goods without expectation of a return of equal value at any definite future time. Generalized reciprocity occurs mainly between individuals who are emotionally attached to one another and have a responsibility to help one another on the basis of need. In the United States, parents who provide their children with shelter, food, vehicles, college educations, and interest-free loans are practicing generalized reciprocity. Giving without the expectation of a quick and equivalent return should also occur between certain other kinds of social relations, such as wives and husbands, siblings, and sometimes close friends. Among certain groups of people more goods are exchanged using this form than any other. For example, most members of small hunting and gathering groups are expected to share food and be generous with their possessions. Generalized reciprocity happens in all human populations and is the dominant mode of exchange in very small groups in which all or most members are relatives.
To fully understand the Social Exchange theory is to understand its concept. The Social Exchange theory, as stated by Unger and Johns...
Social Exchange theory was created by George Homans in 1958. Since its publication as “Social Behavior as Exchange”, several other theorists like Peter Blau, Richard Emerson, John Thibaut, and Harold Kelley have contributed to the theory. Before diving into the biggest concepts of this theory, two main properties need to be discussed. This theory is all about social exchanges, which are essentially reactions and decisions in relationships. The two properties are self-interest and interdependence. They are the two fundamental interactions between two individuals who each have something of value to the other. When an individual is looking out for their own self-interest, they are looking out for their own economic and psychological needs which can result in things like greed and competition. However, self-interest is not seen as a negative thing; in fact, it can result in both parties achieving their own interests. Interdependence, on the other hand, is harder to study but it is the combination of the two using both their efforts to gain something. Interdependence has higher social implications. Homans, as the founder of the theory, had it say that the theory consists of a social exchange with rewards and costs between at least two people. Rewards are defined as objects that have a positive value and are sought out by individuals. Costs are defined as objects that have a negative value and are avoided by individuals. Rewards in regards to relationships are things like support, friendship, and acceptance, while costs are things like energy spent, time, and money. Essentially this theory states that every individual is trying to maximize their wins or their worth and end up with something that is more positive than negative. Worth equ...