A COMPUTER MODEL OF
A COMPUTER MODEL OF
ELEMENTARY SOCIAL
ELEMENTARY SOCIAL
BEHAVIOR
BEHAVIOR
By John t. Gullahorn & Jeanne E. Gullahorn
인인인인 인인인인
Contents
Contents
Introduction
The program
Proposition 1: Stimulus and Response
Proposition 2: Frequency and Recency or reward
Proposition 3: Assessing the reward
Proposition 4: Derivation-Satiation aspect
Proposition 5: Distributive justice
Introduction
Introduction
Solomon Asch(1952)
“To act in the social field requires a knowledge of social
facts-of persons and groups.”
George Homans’ Social Behavior
one of most provocative explanations of human response in
interpersonal situations
Model human behavior as a function of its payoff: an
individual’s responses depends on the amount and quality of reward and punishment his actions elicit
Use Blau’s description of interpersonal behavior in a
Introduction
Introduction
Blau’s description of interpersonal behavior
16 agents holding the same title
Interaction as an exchange of values
Requesting help
Being abled to do a better job <-> implicitly admitting his
inferiority to a colleague
The program
The program
HOMUNCULUS
Model elementary social behavior in the form of a
computer program written in Information
Processing Language(Newell, 1961e)
hypothetical agents, Ted and George
The program(2)
The program(2)
IPL-V, list processing language
person is represented as a list structure containing
Flow chart
Flow chart
Propostion 1
Propostion 1
Stimulus and response generalization
“If in the recent past the occurrence of a particular
stimulus-situation has been the occasion on which a
man’s activity has been rewarded, then the more similar the present stimulus-situation is to the past one, the
Proposition 1
Proposition 1
George considers whether AR is a general
sitmulus situation in which his responses have
been rewarded (P1, box IV)
George searches a memory list of reinforced stimulus
situations to determine whether the present input is among them.
Determine if his responses have been rewarded by
(Ted) -> deeper search
Proposition 2
Proposition 2
Frequency and recency of reinforcement(P2, box
XXIII)
“The more often within a given period of time a man’s
activity rewards the activity of another, the more often the other will emit the activity”
Rough estimate of the frequency with which Ted
has rewarded each of the activities he is
Proposition 2
Proposition 2
Frequency - set a counter?
But people seem to use a less refined means of
measurements -> crude five-point ordinal scale for reward frequency
Emotional salience -> determine thru trials in
Proposition 3
Proposition 3
Assessing the value of the anticipated rewards(P3,
Box XXIV)
“The more valuable to a man a unit of the activity
another gives him, the more often he will emit activity rewarded by the activity of the other”
ex) Complimenting in front of colleagues > “Hmm,
Proposition 4
Proposition 4
The deprivation-satiation aspect(P4, Box XXV)
“The more often a man has in the recent past received a
Proposition 4
Proposition 4
George evaluate his relative deprivation with
reference to the rewards he anticipates from Ted
Search the description lists of each of the anticipated
rewards to determine the degree of George’s current deprivation or satiation
A deprivation-satiation score is stored as the value of a
Proposition 4
Proposition 4
Cost of the proposed response(Box XXVII)
Homans: the cost of an activity is the value of the
reward obtainable through an alternative activity.
Compare the over-all expected reward from Ted with
Proposition 5
Proposition 5
Distributive justice
“The more to a man’s disadvantage the rule of
distributive justice fails of realization, the more likely he is to display the emotional behavior we call anger”
Social norm or accepted expectations for behavior
Proposition 5
Proposition 5
Programmed Interpretation
Whether a stimulus is appropriate in the given
circumstances(P5, Box I)
Time spent solving problem as being help: if no reward
-> Change its own image list of Tom and expect greater thanks next time-> if No reward again, Warning signal set -> Next, response anger or storing aggression. (but before, George assess the consequences of such
Conclusion
Conclusion
We are reducing complex social behavior to
symbol manipulating processes
Deterministic rather than probabilistic
Decision making processing is assumed to be
serial
Person as an hypothesis testing, information
Conclusion
Conclusion
HOMUNCULUS is an attempt to explicate the ability of a
person engaged in normal social interaction to evaluate the context of behavior, retrieve information necessary to
project alternative plans of action, and before actually
