Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T08:34:54.260Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - An Integrative Theory of Action: The Model of Frame Selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2015

Hartmut Esser
Affiliation:
University of Mannheim Germany
Clemens Kroneberg
Affiliation:
University of Cologne Germany
Edward J. Lawler
Affiliation:
Cornell University, New York
Shane R. Thye
Affiliation:
University of South Carolina
Jeongkoo Yoon
Affiliation:
EWHA Women's University, Seoul
Get access

Summary

Abstract

The question of how norm adherence comes about against all temptations and fears of exploitation continues to loom large in the explanation of social order. It also divides major paradigms in the social sciences, most notably the normative paradigm that views norms as unconditional imperatives and the utilitarian paradigm that regards them as one conditional incentive among others. We introduce the model of frame selection (Esser 2009; Kroneberg 2014) as an integrative theory of action that reconciles these views and allows one to consider the interplay of interests, institutions, and ideas in the explanation of social order. Building on and formalizing insights gained in cognitive social psychology, this dual-process model pinpoints the conditions under which norms will be followed spontaneously rather than being subject to trade-offs. The model yields specific and testable hypotheses and has been applied in diverse fields of sociological research.

THE PROBLEM

The emergence of social order constitutes one of the fundamental problems in the social sciences. It involves the reliable regulation and stabilization of actions within social situations, even against conflicting interests and opportunities. This problem varies in character and severity, ranging from achieving coordination among actors with shared interests to ensuring mutual cooperation despite incentives to free ride in social dilemmas, to overcoming conflicts in which the gain of one actor involves the other's loss. These different problems call for different solutions. Coordination problems can be solved by simple agreements or conventions. Dilemma situations, however, already constitute a problem of “antagonistic cooperation”: notwithstanding the potential gains of mutual cooperation, there is always the temptation to free ride on others’ contributions as well as the fear that one's own contribution will be exploited. This particularly applies to the production of collective goods, which also includes the establishment of institutions that are capable of enforcing order in case of conflicts. Norms constitute an especially important (although not the only) solution to the problem of social order. However, the crucial question then becomes whether and how norm adherence comes about against all temptations and fears of exploitation.

Type
Chapter
Information
Order on the Edge of Chaos
Social Psychology and the Problem of Social Order
, pp. 63 - 85
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abelson, Robert P. 1981. “Psychological Status of the Script Concept.”American Psychologist 36(7): 715–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akerlof, George A. and Kranton, Rachel E.. 2000. “Economics and Identity.Quarterly Journal of Economics 115(3): 715–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, Jeffrey C. 1988. Action and Its Environments: Towards a New Synthesis. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Augoustinos, Martha and Walker, Iain. 1995. Social Cognition. An Integrated Introduction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Bargh, John A., Chen, Mark, and Burrows, Lara. 1996. “Automaticity of Social Behavior: Direct Effects of Trait Construct and Stereotype Activation on Action.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71(2): 230–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechara, Antoine, Damasio, Hanna, Tranel, Daniel, and Damasio, Antonio R.. 1997. “Deciding Advantageously Before Knowing the Advantageous Strategy.Science 275(5304): 1293–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bicchieri, Cristina. 2006. The Grammar of Society: The Nature and Dynamics of Social Norms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boudon, Raymond. 1996. “The ‘Cognitivist Model’. A Generalized ‘Rational-Choice Model’.Rationality and Society 8(2): 123–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boudon, Raymond 2003. “Beyond Rational Choice Theory.Annual Review of Sociology 29: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, Norman und Gautschi, Thomas. 2014. “‘Zwei Seelen wohnen, ach! in meiner Brust’: Ein Rational-Choice-Modell innerer Konflikte.Zeitschrift für Soziologie 43(1): 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaiken, Shelly and Trope, Yaacov. 1999. Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Chen, Serena and Chaiken, Shelly. 1999. “The Heuristic-Systematic Model in Its Broader Context.” Pp. 73–96 in Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology, edited by Chaiken, S. and Trope, Y.. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Cookson, Richard. 2000. “Framing Effects in Public Goods Experiments.” Experimental Economics 3(1): 55–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, Albert, Foucart, Alice, Hayakawa, Sayuri, Aparici, Melina, Apesteguia, Jose, Heafner, Joy, and Keysar, Boaz. 2014. “Your Morals Depend on Language.” PLoS ONE 9(4). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094842.Google ScholarPubMed
De Martino, Benedetto, Kumaran, Dharshan, Seymour, Ben, and Dolan, Raymond J.. 2006. “Frames, Biases, and Rational Decision-Making in the Human Brain.” Science 313(5787): 684–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deppe, Michael, Schwindt, Wolfram, Krämer, Julia, Kugel, Harald, Plassmann, Hilke, Kenning, Peter, and Ringelstein, Erich Bernd. 2005. “Evidence for a Neural Correlate of a Framing Effect: Bias-Specific Activity in the Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex during Credibility Judgments.Brain Research Bulletin 67(5): 413–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DiMaggio, Paul. 1997. “Culture and Cognition.Annual Review of Sociology 23: 263–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dufwenberg, Martin, Gächter, Simon, and Hennig-Schmidt, Heike. 2011. “The Framing of Games and the Psychology of Play.” Games and Economic Behavior 73(2): 459–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellingsen, Tore, Johannesson, Magnus, Mollerstrom, Johanna, and Munkhammar, Sara. 2012. “Social Framing Effects: Preferences or Beliefs?Games and Economic Behavior 76(1): 117–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1989a. Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, Jon 1989b. The Cement of Society. A Study of Social Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emirbayer, Mustafa and Mische, Ann. 1998. “What is Agency?American Journal of Sociology 103: 962–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, Christoph and Rand, David G.. 2014. “What Does ‘Clean’ Really Mean? The Implicit Framing of Decontextualized Experiments.Economics Letters 122(3): 386–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, Kimmo and Strimling, Pontus. 2014. “Spontaneous Associations and Label Framing Have Similar Effects in the Public Goods Game.Judgment and Decision Making 9(5): 360–72.Google Scholar
Esser, Hartmut. 1993. “The Rationality of Everyday Behavior. A Rational Choice Reconstruction of the Theory of Action by Alfred Schütz.Rationality and Society 5(1): 7–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esser, Hartmut. 2001. Soziologie: Spezielle Grundlagen, Band 6: Sinn und Kultur. Frankfurt/M., New York: Campus.Google Scholar
Esser, Hartmut. 2009. “Rationality and Commitment: The Model of Frame Selection and the Explanation of Normative Action.” Pp. 207–30 in Raymond Boudon: A Life in Sociology, Vol. 2, Part Two: Toward a General Theory of Rationality, edited by Cherkaoui, M. and Hamilton, P.. Oxford: The Bardwell Press.Google Scholar
Etzioni, Amitai. 1988. The Moral Dimension: Toward a New Economics. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Fazio, Russell H. 1990. “Multiple Processes by Which Attitudes Guide Behavior: The Mode Model as an Integrative Framework.” Pp. 75–109 in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, edited by Zanna, M. P.. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fehr, Ernst and Hoff, Karla. 2011. “Introduction: Tastes, Castes and Culture: The Influence of Society on Preferences.The Economic Journal 121(556): F396–F412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, Susan T. and Neuberg, Steven L.. 1990. “A Continuum of Impression Formation, from Category-Based to Individuating Processes: Influences of Information and Motivation on Attention and Interpretation.” Pp. 1–74 in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, edited by Zanna, M. P. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Greifeneder, Rainer, Müller, Patrick, Stahlberg, Dagmar, Bos, Kees van den, and Bless, Herbert. 2011. “Guiding Trustful Behavior: The Role of Accessible Content and Accessibility Experiences.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 24(5):498–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haley, Kevin J. and Fessler, Daniel M.T.. 2005. “Nobody's Watching? Subtle Cues Affect Generosity in an Anonymous Economic Game.Evolution and Human Behavior 26(3): 245–56.Google Scholar
Heiner, Ronald A. 1983. “The Origin of Predictable Behavior.The American Economic Review 73(4): 560–95.Google Scholar
Higgins, E. Tory. 1996. “Knowledge Activation: Accessibility, Applicability, and Salience.” Pp. 133–68 in Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, edited by Higgins, E. T. and Kruglanski, A. W.. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Hubert, Mirja and Kenning, Peter. 2008. “A Current Overview of Consumer Neuroscience.Journal of Consumer Behaviour 7: 272–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Aaron C., Wheeler, S. Christian, Bargh, John A., and Ross, Lee. 2004. “Material Priming: The Influence of Mundane Physical Objects on Situational Construal and Competitive Behavioral Choice.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 95: 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keizer, Kees, Lindenberg, Siegwart, and Steg, Linda. 2013. “The Importance of Demonstratively Restoring Order.PLoS ONE 8(6). e65137. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0065137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kroneberg, Clemens. 2005. “Die Definition der Situation und die variable Rationalität der Akteure. Ein allgemeines Modell des Handelns.” Zeitschrift für Soziologie 34(5): 344–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroneberg, Clemens 2011. Die Erklärung sozialen Handelns. Grundlagen und Anwendung einer integrativen Theorie.Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroneberg, Clemens 2014. “Frames, Scripts, and Variable Rationality: An Integrative Theory of Action.” Pp. 97–123 in Analytical Sociology. Actions and Networks, edited by Manzo, G.. Chichester: Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar
Kroneberg, Clemens, Yaish, Meir, and Stocké, Volker. 2010. “Norms and Rationality in Electoral Participation and in the Rescue of Jews in WWII.: An Application of the Model of Frame Selection.” Rationality and Society 22(1): 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeDoux, Joseph. 1999. The Emotional Brain. The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life. London: Phoenix.Google Scholar
Lieberman, Matthew D. 2007. “Social Cognitive Neuroscience: A Review of Core Processes.Annual Review of Psychology 58: 259–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liberman, Varda, Samuels, Steven M., and Ross, Lee. 2004. “The Name of the Game: Predictive Power of Reputations Versus Situational Labels in Determining Prisoner's Dilemma Game Moves.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30(9): 1175–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindenberg, Siegwart. 1989. “Choice and Culture: The Behavioral Basis of Cultural Impact on Transactions.” Pp. 175–200 in Social Structure and Culture, edited by Haferkamp, H.. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lindenberg, Siegwart 2008. “Social Rationality, Semi-Modularity and Goal-Framing: What Is It All About?”. Analyse & Kritik 30: 669–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, James G. and Olsen, Johan P.. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions. The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Montgomery, James D. 1998. “Toward a Role-Theoretic Conception of Embeddedness.” American Journal of Sociology 104(1):92–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moskowitz, Gordon B. 2005. Social Cognition. Understanding Self and Others. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Parsons, Talcott. 1937. The Structure of Social Action. A Study in Social Theory with Special Reference to a Group of Recent European Writers. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Payne, John W. and Bettman, James R.. 2002. “Preferential Choice and Adaptive Strategy Use.” Pp. 123–45 in Bounded Rationality. The Adaptive Toolbox, edited by Gigerenzer, G. and Selten, R.. Cambridge, MA & London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Payne, John W., Bettman, James R., and Johnson, Eric J.. 1988. “Adaptive Strategy Selection in Decision Making.”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 14(3): 534–52.Google Scholar
Plassmann, Hilke, Kenning, Peter, and Ahlert, Dieter. 2006. “The Fire of Desire: Neural Correlates of Brand Choice.European Advances in Consumer Research 7: 516–17.Google Scholar
Rand, David G., Greene, Joshua D., and Nowak, Martin A.. 2012. “Spontaneous Giving and Calculated Greed.Nature 489(7416): 427–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rilling, James K. and Sanfey, Alan G.. 2011. “The Neuroscience of Social Decision-Making.Annual Review of Psychology 62: 23–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rolls, Edmund T. 1999. The Brain and Emotion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rompf, Stephan. 2012. “Trust and Adaptive Rationality. Towards a New Paradigm in Trust Research.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Mannheim. Retrieved from https://ub-madoc.bib.uni-mannheim.de/35963/.
Roth, Gerhard. 2001. Fühlen, Denken, Handeln. Wie das Gehirn unser Verhalten steuert. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Rubinstein, Ariel and Zhou, Lin. 1999. “Choice Problems with a ‘Reference’ Point.Mathematical Social Sciences 37: 205–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salant, Yuval and Rubinstein, Ariel. 2008. “(A, f): Choice with Frames.Review of Economic Studies 75: 1287–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandroni, Alvaro. 2011. “Akrasia, Instincts, and Revealed Preferences.Synthese 181(1): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütz, Alfred. 1970. Reflections on the Problem of Relevance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert A. 1983. Reason in Human Affairs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Eliot R. and DeCoster, Jamie. 2000. “Dual-Process Models in Social and Cognitive Psychology: Conceptual Integration and Links to Underlying Memory Systems.Personality and Social Psychology Review 4(2): 108–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stocké, Volker. 1996. Relative Knappheiten und die Definition der Situation. Die Bedeutung von Formulierungsunterschieden, Informationsmenge und Informationszugänglichkeit in Entscheidungssituationen: Ein Test der Framinghypothese der Prospect-Theory am Beispiel des ‘asian disease problem’. Research Report for the German National Science Foundation (DFG). Mannheim: University of Mannheim.
Strack, Fritz and Deutsch, Roland. 2004. “Reflective and Impulsive Determinants of Social Behavior.Personality and Social Psychology Review 8(3): 220–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strauss, Claudia and Quinn, Naomi. 1997. A Cognitive Theory of Cultural Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, William I. and Znaniecki, Florian. 1927. The Polish Peasant in Europe and America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Tutic, Andreas. 2015. Revealed Norm Obedience. Social Choice and Welfare 44: 301–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, Amos and Kahneman, Daniel. 1981. “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice.Science 211(4481): 453–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Young, Alford A., Jr. 2010. “New Life for an Old Concept: Frame Analysis and the Reinvigoration of Studies in Culture and Poverty.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 629(1):53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×