1. A COMPUTER MODEL OF ELEMENTARY SOCIAL BEHAVIOR By John t. Gullahorn & Jeanne E. Gullahorn 인지과학 협동과정 98132-506 이광주

2. 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 Conclusion

3. 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 bureaucracy(Blau, 1955)

4. 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  Gain prestige time taken from his own work

5. 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 person as information processing organism

6. The program(2) IPL-V, list processing language person is represented as a list structure containing a large number of description lists.

7. Flow chart figure 1 ~ figure 3

8. 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 more likely he is to emit the activity, or some similar activity, now”

9. 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 Consider response alternatives

10. 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 considering in response to Ted’s current request for help

11. 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 controlled conditions

12. 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, thanks” > “Well, sorry I bothered you”

13. Proposition 4 The deprivation-satiation aspect(P4, Box XXV)  “The more often a man has in the recent past received a rewarding activity from another, the less valuable any further unit of that activity becomes to him”

14. 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 special attribute on the description list of each activity.

15. 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 the anticipated reward from continuing with his own work

16. 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 within a group

17. 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 behavior)

18. 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 processing organism

19. 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 committing himself overtly - to select the conditions under which he will emit one activity rather than another.