93mg Wm [H ma mmtzmoa
mu wammmnw m me mucm
€22? mmawwa 535m:

Y [1-6519 for! *Z‘Eta Dogma 0:? Me A.
MICHIGAN STATE UHWERSETY

Girard E. Krebs
{35346

W595 LI B R A R Y
Michigan 5 ma

Univezsity

 

 

 

LCCM L?” ONLY

ABSTRACT

DEVELOPMENTS IN THE FURMALIZATICN AND VERIFICATION
OF THE PRINCIPLE UF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE

by Girard E. Hrebs

The research reported here is based on the work of George
Homans. The subject matter is the principle of distributive
justice as formulated by Homans. Since this research is only
preliminary in nature, several other shortcomings besides concern
with only investment and profit are inherent. For example, in
attempting to delineate suitable criteria of investment and
profit, it was believed that authority and ability are at least
manifestations of investment, and cash award is a manifestation
of profit. Obvious here is the probability that authority and
ability may be forms of investment and that cash award may be a
form of profit, but these likely do not constitute all the
investments and profits in an economic or social exchange. The
psychological investments and profits are not even considered.

A survey type research design was used and is justified by
the fact that the research was directed at learning the
normative nature of the principle of distributive justice. The
results obtained in the survey were largely inconsistent with
expectations in that 88 percent of the respondents (n=485) to one
of eight different hypothetical situations of varying degrees of
ability and authority would split the profits of the exchange
evenly -- that is, 50-50. This large percentage of 50-50 responses

is attributed to the nature of the situations formulated and used

Birard E. Krebs

in the research design. The thought is that the situations lacked
real significance and personal commitment on the part of the
people asked to project themselves into the various situations.

0f the 12 percent of the respondents who did g9; indicate an
even profit split (i.e. indicated some split other than 50-50),
results support the general hypothesis that the manner in which
total profits in an exchange situation are split will reflect
the investment pattern of the exchange; the more a participant
has invested in the exchange, the greater will be his profit

expectations.

DEVELOPMENTS IN THE FORMALIZATION AND VERIFICATION

OF THE PRINCIPLE OF OISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE

By

Girard E. Krebs

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Sociology

1966

ACKNOULEDGMENTS

As in all scientific investigation, the work which follows
stems from the work of several other men. Reference will be made
to these men and to their work where appropriate and where
specific sources are recalled. However, the ideas and combinations
of ideas, which stimulated this work have their origins in places
and people other than those specifically referred to. I am
indebted to Professors Santo F. Camilleri and Thomas L. Conner,
both of Michigan State University, and to Uayne Olin, a fellow
graduate student, for their suggestions and for ideas gained in
discussions with them. They are, however, in no way responsible

for any errors of thought or mechanics found herein.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACHNle—EDGIWENTS o o o o o o o o 0

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF APPENDIXES . . . . . . .

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER

I.

II.
III.
IV.
V.

VI.

A Partial Formalization of
Distributive Justice . . .

Investments and Profits in
Research Design. . . . . .
Procedures . . . . . . . .

Results and Interpretation

the Principle

of

a Task Situation.

Suggestions for Further Research . . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY I O O O O C I I O I

iii

ii

iv

2h

28

32

AB

83

LIST

2. . . . . . . .
3 . . . . . . .
A. . . . . . . .
5. . . . . . . .
6. . . . . . . .
7. . . . . . . .
B. . . . . . . .
9. . . . . . . .

OF TABLES

iv

14

17

28

31

32

33

3A

37

.37

38

3B

Appendix

LIST OF

APPENDIXES

53

62

71

79

8O

81

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

llllllllllllllll

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

INTRODUCTION

The basis for this research is George Homans' principle of
distributive justice.1 This principle states that:

A man in an exchange relation with another will
expect that the rewards of each man be proportional
to his costs - the greater the rewards, the greater
the costs -- and that the net rewards, or profits,
of each man be proportional to his investments --

the greater the investments, the greater the

profit.2

Homans' work is an attempt to explicate his thinking on what
he calls the social economics of human interaction. He
specifically states that his propositions are derived from the
prepositions of behavioral psychology and elementary economics.
He reminds us that behavioral psychology deals largely with
non-social experimental studies of the actions and reactions of
organisms; elementary economics deals with men in social
situations, for surely the economic market place is a social one.
From apples and dollars, physical goods and money, elementary
economics needs to be extrapolated to apply to the exchange in
intangible services for social esteem in a market place that is
imperfect.3 what results from this process of extrapolation is

what Homans calls the social economics of an exchange.

 

1George C. Homans, Social Behavior: Its Elementarijorms.
(New York: Harcourt, Brace and world, Inc., 1961).

2Homans, p. 75.

3Homans, p. 12.

Since this research is preliminary in nature, the concern
here is with just a fraction of those concepts with which Homans
is concerned. The factors of interest in this research are
investments and profits. Homans does not satisfactorily define
what he means when he speaks of investments or profits. The most
we can learn from him is from isolated bits and pieces of
information. For instance, he speaks of investments as being
determined by the many features of the past histories or back-
grounds of the people in an exchange,“ and indicates that some of
a man's background characteristics increase in value with the time
and ability he has "put in" in various situations.5 The
implication here is that, since investments are determined by these
background characteristics, as the characteristics increase in
value, so do the investments increase in value.

Homans does give an explicit definition of profit, but in terms
of two other variables. For him, profit is equal to reward less
cost.6 Df rewards, Homans makes the statement that the heart of
the psychology used here is not a stimulus and a response but an
operant and a reinforcer (an activity and a reward)7. He talks

about positive and negative reinforcers,8 and later on he mentions

 

“Homans, pp. 74-5.
SHomans, p. 236.
6Homans, p. 61.
7Homans, p. 22.

8Homans, p. 2h.

9 Still

escape from or avoidance of punishment as being rewarding.
later, the cost of an activity is defined as the value of the
reward obtained through a unit of an alternative activity, forgone
in emitting the given one.10

Generally speaking, Homans' work is permeated with such
ambiguities, not only in his definitions or lack thereof, but in
his explications as well. But of singular importance is the
possibility that he has the makings of a model for social
interaction. One could devote much time to the refinement of
Homans' original conceptions, and this research is meant as a start
in that direction.

The beginning here is an initial thrust into the normative
nature of the principle of distributive justice in which the
relevant variables are investments and profits. The research
involves a survey design in which respondents were asked to react
to one of eight different hypothetical situations involving
different combinations of presupposed manifestations of invest-
ments and profits (see APPENDIX A).

The general plan of this thesis is as follows: First is a
formalization of the relationship Homans thinks exists between
investments and profit. A thorough and systematic screening of
Homans' work was performed to sift out those statements relevant
to investments and profit; these were then formalized and

operated upon algebraically. This process yields a new relation-

 

9Homans, pp. 57-8.

IDHomans, p. ED.

ship -- one which to my knowledge Homans does not indicate in
his work.

Focus is then shifted to the development of the implications
of this new relationship. In order to pursue this matter, it is
necessary to operationalize investment and profit. This
operationalization is elaborated and justified; then hypotheses
stemming from the operationalization and the formalization are
presented. That is, the analysis is taken a step further.
Assuming that the principle of distributive justice does in fact
describe social situations within a reasonable degree of
accuracy, an attempt was made to determine how much of the total
differential in concrete rewards to people in a social exchange
is attributable to differentials of investments in some instances,
and to additive investments in others. From this point, the
rationale for the research design, and the research itself are

explicated.

CHAPTER ONE

A Partial Formalization of the Principle of Distributive Justice

Having studied Homans' ideas regarding rewards, costs, profits,
investments, and rates of investment, I became interested in the
possibility of formalizing the relationships which exist among these
elements of exchange. Although it is possible to treat these
variables rigorously and to establish a number of mathematical
relationships among them, the concern in this research is with
profits and investments. Before beginning this treatment, I
acknowledge the possibility that by treating rewards and costs only
peripherally in this exercise I run the risk of error from omitting
or treating as irrelevant, what may be truly relevant variables.
Investments and profits were chosen as a beginning because they
seem most easy to operationalize, at least in part.

In this section of this thesis several of Homans' Verbalized
statements regarding the relationships among various elements of
exchange are reviewed, symbolized, and then operated upon
mathematically. In the process, some new relationships are
established -- ones which are not expressed by Homans -- as are
rigorously derived statements which demonstrate the consistency
of these interpretations of Homans' conceptions.

The reader will notice immediately that "should be" statements
by Homans are here transformed into "is" or "will be" statements.
Homans' "should be" statements follow from the proviso "if justice
is to obtain." Use of "is" or "will be" is based on the assumption

that distributive justice is operational. One need not accept this

assumption; in fact, actual research may be its undoing.
In the section called "Proportionality of Profits and Invest-
ments,"ll Homans makes the following statements:

'°'Distributive justice demands not absoLJteequality
of profits, but equality of profits as a rate of return
on investments.

SYMBOLIZED: P = r I , P = r I .
P P P 0 0 0

'-'A man in an exchange relation with another will

12

expect the profits of each to be directly

pr0portional to his investment, ---.

P P
. .2 _ .2 _
SYMBOLIZED. In - kl , Io _ k2 .

'-°If the investment of two men, or two groups, are
equal, their profits should be equal, -°'.

SYMBOLIZED: if I = I , then P = P .
p o p o

---If their investments are unequal, the one with the
greater investments should get the greater profit.
SYMBOLIZED: if I I , then P P , and

p o p o

if I I , then P P .
p o p 0

Men certainly assess their own investments and income,
but to make the rule of justice work they must assess

those of others 23 the same scale (emphasis mine).

Given the above information, it can be demonstrated that I2 =

p
rp, rp being the rate of investment under consideration. Using an

 

;1Homans, pp. 2&2-7.

12In this presentation, I is used for investments, P for
profits, and r for rate of investment. The lower case subscript
p designates Person, and o designates Other. Thus, I

should be read, "the investments of Person," and PD should be read,

"the profits of Other," and so on.

economic analogy, suppose profits are 10 units and investment is
100 units. Then the rate of investment is 7%? or 10 percent. In
the analogy used here, for every one unit of profit there are ten
units of investment. The scale here is l to ID. If the subjective
assessment of an investment situation is on a l to 10 scale, then
the assessment of the investment of others, according to Homans,
must be 1 to ID as well. Because, to make the rule of distributive
justice work, the investment and income of all members of an
exchange must be measured on the same scale. This scale turns out
to be the rate of investment. Then, rp = r0 . That is, rp must be
subjectively equal to rU , assuming that distributive justice is to

prevail.

Going one step further, if rp = r0, then from the algebraic

P P
manipulation resulting in r = I2 , and r0 = 32':
P p o
P P
-2._ .2
I T I '
p o

Stated formally:

In an exchange, the relationship of one man's profits
to his investments lies in the same ratio as the
relationship of a second man's profits to his

investments.

By manipulating this formalized principle, we can determine that

P I

_E.= .E

P I °
0 o

Stated formally:

The profits of two people in an exchange lie in the

same ratio as their investments.

This formulation is submitted as a basic principle derived from
Homans‘ work in the principle of distributive justice. The task
now is to test the validity of the structure of the relations which
Homans presents and the relationships derived from his work.

If empirical research denies these relationships, then one or
more of several things is wrong:

1. There may be no principle of distributive justice.

2. There may be a principle of distributive justice, but this
interpretation may be incorrect, the statement of the
principle may be incorrect, or both.

3. There may be more than one manifestation of the principle of

distributive justice.

CHAPTER TUB
Investments and Profits in a Task Situation

A basic assumption in this research is that ability and
authority are forms of investment and that money is a form of
profit. An elaboration on why these assumptions were made is in
order at this point. Homans' discussion of social behavior is
permeated with examples of studies in which one or both of these
factors (ability and authority) are relevant. As a pointed
example, the reader is referred to Homans' discussion of the
rewards and costs of consultation in a department of a local

13

branch of a federal agency. The original report of the research

appeared in The Dynamics gfi Bureaucracy,lh but is analyzed by

 

Homans in terms of the social economics of the situation. Homans'
analysis suggests that ability can be a factor in determining
authority. The idea that these factors are investments follows
naturally from Homans' analysis.

Another source of the idea that ability and authority are forms
of investment, and that money is a form of profit, is observation
of western civilization in general and United States society in
particular. One needs only to reflect on the pattern of life in
this country to understand why ability and authority are adduced

as forms of investment, and money as a form of profit. This

 

13Homans, pp. 360-371.

1“Peter M. Blau, The Dynamics 2: Bureaucracy. (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1955).

 

”1

1O

society and culture are, as is evident in Homans' analysis,
permeated with reward for achievement, striving for self-enhance-
ment, climbing of the social and economic ladders, and so on.

A final source of these perceptions is the research in which I
have been involved during the past year. Santo F. Camilleri of the
Department of Sociology at Michigan State University has formulated
a gain-loss model of decision making. He has introduced the ability
and authority factors into an experimental laboratory situation from
which he hopes to arrive at some probability figures on decision
making.

The "givens" in Camilleri's work are:

l. a task situation in which two individuals are involved

2. individual A perceives himself as having high or
low ability, and perceives individual B as likewise
having high or low ability in some dyadic combination

3. one of these two people has authority for final decisions.

That is, both people may perceive themselves and their partners in
the task as having high ability. Or one person may be perceived

of as having high ability and the other as having low ability.

And either of these people may have authority over the other. In
constructing such a situation in the laboratory, Camilleri is
attempting to establish probability statements concerning the types
of decisions which will be made by participants in the various
conditions if they disagree with each other on the proper resolution
of the task. Much of my thinking, and the actual research design
used in this study, are attributable to having worked as a research
assistant with Professor Camilleri during this past year.

A note on the Notation System:

11

1. The assignment of the designation A to Person and B to
Other is arbitrary. This has no significance other than to allow
symbolic representation. Person could be designated B and Other
designated A.
2. Authority -- If A and B have unequal authority, 1.8., one
or the other is in a position of authority vis-a-vis the other, one
letter designate is placed above the other. For example, the
notation g designates A in an authority relation over B.
3. Ability -- If A and B have egggl ability, and that ability
is high, the notations A+ and 8+ are used. The notation A+,
a‘ would mean that A has high ability while a has low ability.
This is obviously a condition of unequal ability.
4. Authority and Ability -- Combining the notation systems above,
an extended notation system is developed. To illustrate, the
notation g: (A above B; A with one "minus" superscript and B
with one "plus" superscript) means that A has low ability, B
has high ability, and A has authority Egg; B. Any combination of
ability and authority desired in a study can be "created," assuming,
of course, that communication with the respondents is effective,
and that they perceive themselves in the appropriate states.
Although any combination is possible, a g condition is not
used because it is meaningless in this context. Recall that the
assignment of A to Person and B to Other is arbitrary. B
could be used to designate Person; so either subject can be
designated either A or B.
Regarding the factors of investments and profits, it would

be at most very difficult, and at least very ambitious, to classify

12

the psychological manifestations of any of these four factors.
Thibaut and Kelley15 assume that psychological rewards can be
measured, and that rewards of different model gratifications can
be reduced to a single psychological scale. Likewise, costs are
assumed measurable on a common psychological scale, and in
addition, are additive in their effect. The measurement and
scaling alluded to in this paragraph lie beyond the scope of this
research. what I shall attempt to show is the reflection of these
psychological manifestations in a concretely measurable
differential split in the monetary profits gained from performance
in a task situation carried out within a framework of concerted
team effort.

An assumption upon which this phase of this inquiry lies is
that both ability and authority are forms of investment in the
exchange extant in the research design. I do not say, or mean to
imply, that authority and ability are the ggly investments; I say
only that they are the relevant investments. Other factors are
either not important at all or form a separate and independent
system. The assumption is that there are no other relevant factors
which will systematically upset the profit split.

Another assumption which arises at this point is that the money
which the subjects gain from this exchange is a profit from it.
Again, the money involved is not the sole profit; the point is that

this money is the relevant profit. In addition, since Homans16

15John w. Thibaut and Harold H. Kelley, The Social Psychology
of” Groups. (New York: John wiley 8 Sons, Inc., 195951

16Homans, pp. 97, 241, 2th.

13

says that profits equal rewards minus costs and that costs are equal
to rewards forgone, part or all of the money may be offsetting part
or all of the costs of the exchange, leaving none, or only some of
the money as profit. In other words, it may be incorrect to call
all the money profit. It may be more nearly correct to call this
money reward. This point, however, will not be of major concern
in this research.

Having related the terms ability and authority to investments,
and money to profits, I can now incorporate Homans' thinking into
the analysis.

General Hypothesis: The manner in which total profits
in an exchange situation are split will reflect the
investment pattern of the exchange; the more a
participant has invested in the exchange, the greater
will be his profits.

In a dyadic task situation (such as the one used in this
research design) in which two subjects have equal ability and equal
authority, the profits should be split equally. If authority were
equal or not a factor, but ability differed in the two subjects,
that subject with the greater ability in performing a task should
reap a larger proportion of the profits. If a subject were in a
position such that he had greater ability to perform the task Egg
had authority in the task situation, he should reap an even higher
proportion of the profits because of increased investments.

To simplify this analysis, two of the authority-ability

relationships which will be used in this research have been
.4. _
selected for explication. They are 3- and 2+ . In the first

case, A has high ability and B has low ability. In addition,

1h

A has the authority for the final decision. In the second case,
A has low ability and authority for the final decision while B
has high ability, but has no authority for the final decision.
with the aid of a sort of four fold table for reference, and
with differential split of profits as the result of the relation-

ships extant in this table, several specific hypotheses are

 

 

offered:
TABLE 1
I II
A+ A-
IV III
a' a”

 

 

 

 

Hypothesis I: Of the four possible combinations of authority
and ability, 8 subject in condition I (cell I) will reap the
highest percentage of total rewards. That is, a subject in
condition I has high ability invested and is in the
position of authority, and will therefore reap the greatest
profit.

Hypothesis II: Of the four possible combinations of authority
and ability, a subject in condition IV (cell IV) will reap

the lowest percentage of total rewards. That is, a subject in
condition IV has neither ability nor authority invested in the
exchange, and will therefore reap the least profit.

Derivation I (From Hypotheses I and II): Differential
investments of authority and ability of subjects in conditions
I and IV will result in the widest differential percentage
split of total profits of any of the possible comparisons of
conditions. Symbolically, and in relative profits, A+> B- .

Hypothesis III: A subject in condition I (call I) will reap

15

greater profits than a subject in condition II (cell II).

Symbolically, A+> A- .

This will be so because, althOUgh each subject has the
authority for final decisions, the subject in condition I has
high ability while the subject in condition II does not. The
subject in condition I has more invested in the exchange, and will
therefore reap greater profits.

Hypothesis IV: A subject in condition I (cell I) will reap
greater profits than a subject in condition III (cell III).

Symbolically, A+> 8+ .

This will be so because the two subjects will have equal (high)
ability invested in the exchange, but the subject in condition I
also has authority for final decisions while the subject in
condition III does not.

Hypothesis V: A subject in condition II (cell II) will reap
greater profits than a subject in condition IV (cell IV).

Symbolically, A”) B- .

This is so because the two subjects will have equal (low)
ability invested in the exchange, but the subject in condition II
has authority for final decisions while the subject in condition

IV does not.

Hypothesis VI: A subject in condition III (cell III) will
reap greater profits than a subject in condition IV (cell IV).

Symbolically, 3+) 8.2

This will be so because the two subjects have equal authority
for final decisions (i.e., no authority), but the subject in
condition III has high ability invested in the exchange while the

subject in condition IV has low ability investments.

16

The one differential profit split relationship which cannot
be derived from the analysis is that between A- and B+ . This
relationship is problematic because one of the subjects (A-) has
only authority for final decisions invested in the exchange, while
the other (8+) has only high ability invested. The problem becomes
one of deciding on some grounds whether authority or ability is the
greater investment.

On the basis of research by Jackson17 it seems that:

Hypothesis VII: A subject in condition III (cell III)
with reap greater profits than a subject in condition
II (cell II).

Symbolically, B+> A".

This hypothesis is admittedly the weakest of the several which
have been made. None the less, it is logically consistent with
the other hypotheses formulated, a discussion of which will follow
a presentation of the basis for formulating it.

Jackson addressed the problem of status consistency, and
stress arising from status inconsistency. In this study of the
stressful impact of status inconsistency on the individual, he
suggests that the relative positions of achieved and ascribed
status ranks influence the way an individual defines his situation.
More specifically, Jackson found that disequilibration (in

18

Kimberly's terms) perceived by the individual as having resulted

 

17Elton F. Jackson, "Status Consistency and Symptoms of
Stress," American Sociological Review, 27(h):(l962), h69-hBO.

18James C. Kimberly, "A Theory of Status Equilibration," in
Berger, Zelditch and Anderson (eds), Sociological Theories in
Progress. (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1966). Also as Technical
Report #6, Office of Naval Research, Contract Nonr 1181 (11),
Project NR l79-7AO, (not dated).

17

from his own actions cause stress, whereas disequilibration
perceived as having resulted from agents or situations beyond his
control do not cause this stress.

Because the selection of the authority figure in the proposed
study should be perceived by the subjects as arbitrary, the
authority element should not be weighted as heavily as the ability
element; the ability element, should be perceived as directly
resultant from the subject's own actions. Therefore, Hypothesis
VII is based on Jackson's findings.

Some hypothetical figures are added to TABLE 1 which may be
used for demonstration only. These figures are used to represent
one possible differential percentage split of the profits, and also
to demonstrate the logical consistency of all the possible

relationships which exist among the four conditions.

 

TABLE 28

A+ A-
70 AD
30 so

a‘ B+

 

aFigures clustered about the intersection of the cell division
lines are hypothetical differential percentage splits of profits
from the exchange. Recall that A+ and B' are in exchange, as are A"

and 8+. Therefore, vertical percentages must add to 100 percent.

A+ and A-, as well as B- and B+ are not in exchange; horizontal
percentages therefore need not add to 100 percent.

Collecting all the differential percentages of profit
relationships among the various conditions, the following

hypotheses have been generated:

18

1. A+> A-
2. A+> B+
3. A+> a‘
A. A'> B"
5. a+> A-
6. F“) B"

Let us look now at the logical structure of these relation-
ships. Hypothesis VII (the weak one) states that B+> AT.
Hypothesis V states that AT>T 8-. Using the logical property
of transitivity, if B+> A“, and A') a“, then a*> 8‘. Thus,
using the logical structure of the property of transitivity,
Hypothesis VI is derived. This Operation is further support for
the hypothesis that B+ could be greater than A'.

However, the logical structure of the relationships would not
be disturbed if A' = 8+, or even if A‘> a+ within specified limits.
The logical structure will hold provided that A+> 8+, A' > a",
A+> AT, and 8+) B... If, for example, the differential profits
percentage split between A+ and B- were 70 - 30, A' could range
from any percentage greater than 30 to one less than 70. That is,
30 < A“ < 70. Similarly, 3o< 51“.: 70. As long as these
conditions were met, Hypotheses I through VI could be valid.
Bringing this last point to light is, however, not sufficient to
prompt the withdrawal of Hypothesis VII.

If one wishes a further check on the logical validity of the
hypotheses presented, it is not difficult to establish the
following relationships:

1. A+> A’> 8"

19

2. AT) e+> a“

3. A+> a*> A-

h. B+> A'> 8"
Finally, 5. A+> a+> A- > B‘ .

An analysis of other important possible relationships which
exist, or could exist among people who occupy the various positions
thus far delineated yis-a-yis a split of any tangible profit
intended from some outside source now seems germaine. what was
done in the immediately preceding discussion was an analysis of
the relationships expected in a situation in which there were two

sets of two people in the actual exchange. Specifically, the

+ -
exchange situations were 3- and 3+ . The hypotheses are that

A+> B- and that B+> AT. Beyond this, the relationships were
analyzed across group, or exchange, lines. That is, it was further
hypothesized that A+> a“, A'> e', A+> A‘, and a*> 8'.

Upon a little reflection, one should easily see the danger
in attempting the cross-ordering of these relationships. The
simple fact that AI is ggt in actual exchange with a“, 3" is pg;
in exchange with BT, and so on, is a factor which has not been
reckoned with suitably in the foregoing analysis. The purpose here
is to deal with this shortcoming.

The cross-ordering of these relationships is attempted by
analyzing what would be expected if the particular situations in
which people in exchange may find themselves were reshuffled. In
this manner, the relationships which should exist in the following

+ -

exchanges can be inspected: 1) 2+ ; and 2) 2" Now there are

four exchange situations which we may look at -- namely, the two

20

just presented and the two analyzed in the preceding section, 1.8.,

A+ and A:
B B '

In all four of the cases presented thus far, the person
occupying position A has authority for final decisions over the
person occupying position B. In the comparative analysis of these
four exchange situations, authority is held constant, relatively
speaking, ability is the independent variable, and differential
profit split is the dependent variable. In two instances ability
is equal; however it is low within one of these cases and high
within the other. within the other two instances, ability is
unequal with the person in authority having high ability in one
case and the person in authority having low ability in the other
case. In each of these latter two situations, the exchange
partner has low ability and no authority, and high ability and
no authority, respectively.

Comments have been made on, and hypotheses stated concerning
the g: and g: exchanges. Hypotheses state that in both
exchanges there will be a differential split of profits accruing
from the exchange, and that the order will be A+> B- and 84') A".
In addition to the argument already presented for the 84') A-
hypothesis, it is also true that in the exchange incorporated into
the major research design, A- has the prerogative of drawing upon
the "ability" of 8+. A- learns what B+ thinks is the correct
decision, and AT therefore has the "ability" of B+ at his disposal.
This "ability" does not belong to A-, but A- is free to use it.

In that sense, B+ is potentially a greater contributor to the task

than is A', even though A' has authority for the final decision.

21

+ .—
No problems arise in analyzing the 3+ and 3- exchanges. In a

situation in which such exchanges exist, the following hypotheses
are easily derived, assuming of course, that ability and authority

are investments, that money is a profit, and that the following

P P
investment-profits proportion holds; I2 = I2 :
p o

Hypothesis VIII: Given a dyadic task performance
exchange in which the two people have equal and high
ability at performing the task, and in which one of
these two people has the authority for final
decisions, that person in the authority position
will receive a greater portion of a differential
profit split than will his partner.

AT

a+'

Hypothesis IX: Given a dyadic exchange involving

Symbolically: A+) B+ if

the performance of a task in which the two people
have equal and low ability, and in which one of
these people has the authority for final
decisions, that person in the authority position
will receive a greater portion of a differential
profit split than will his partner.

symbolically: n‘) a“ if g— .

At this point the reader should compare Hypothesis VIII with
Hypothesis IV, and Hypothesis IX with Hypothesis V. The elements
of the two sets of Hypotheses (IV and VIII, and V and IX) are
similar. That is, Hypotheses IV and VIII state the same
relationship as do Hypotheses V and IX.

Now the difficulty arises because in Hypotheses IV and V,

A+ and 8+, as well as A- and B- are not actually in exchange while

they are in exchange in Hypotheses VIII and IX. what this means

22

is that in Hypothesis IV, A+ + B+ does not necessarily equal 100
percent of the total profits because the people involved are not
in exchange, and are therefore not splitting the profits between
themselves. This is also the case with A- and B- in Hypothesis V.
However, in Hypothesis VIII, A+ + B+ must equal 100 percent of

the total profits because these two peOple are in exchange and
are splitting the profits between themselves. The same is true
of A“ and B- in Hypothesis IX.

Hypotheses IV and V, although stemming from the same logical
grounds, differ from Hypotheses VIII and IX with respect to
attempts at their verification. To verify Hypotheses IV and V,
some cross-analyses of data gathered in the g: and B: exchange
situations must be performed. To verify Hypotheses VIII and IX,
only internal analyses in the 2: exchange and in the 3: exchange are
necessary. Cross-analysis is not appropriate for verification of
Hypotheses VIII and IX, but the results of cross-analysis of A+ and
B', as well as A- and B+ in the g: and B: exchanges may be
interesting when compared with the internal analyses of A+ and B“,
as well as the A- and B+ relationships in the g: and B: exchanges.

In short, the verification of the two sets of similar
relationships requires two different research designs. One
research design must provide for g: and B: exchanges, and the other
design must provide for g: and g: exchanges. Putting all four
exchanges in the same design does not alter the fact that each
Combination is necessary.

As a general summary, two actual exchange relationships were

analyzed and their elements were ordered both internally and

23

across exchange boundaries. An order for the four elements in the
two 2: and B: exchanges was than stated. This order is A+J> 8+).
A’> a'.

A further analysis to determine the nature of any other

relationships which may be constructed from these elements was
of
attempted. In actual exchanges, the following were added: 3+ and

S: . In the 3: exchange, A+> B+ . Also, in the 2: exchange,
A')> 8-. It is necessary to select only the 8+)» A- ordering from
the 2: exchange analyzed earlier to reach the closure already
argued for, namely that A+>v B+>> A':> 8-. But this closure is
reached by analyzing actual exchange situations in this last

instance, whereas that same closure is reached by internal

analysis and cross-analysis in the first instance.

CHAPTER IHREE

Research Design

It has been suggested, especially in research regarding
prejudice, that people do not do what they say they would do were
they confronted with a given situation. In a hypothetical
situation, 1.8., one into which an individual only projects
himself, there would be less emotional involvement than one in
which the individual is integrally involved. what is suggested
is an emotional involvement different for each of two situations,
one in which the individual occupies an objective, observational
position, and the other in which the individual identifies himself
hypothetically as an active participant. In the former situation,
it seems the individual would make evaluationson the basis of a
subjective, self-centered perception of the situation, whereas in
the latter the individual would apply the norms of his society or
group.

That is, there should be, intuitively speaking, a high
correlation between results obtained in implementing a hypothetical
'type research design and the norms of the society since the norms
of society are what its members say would occur under specified
conditions. The norms are manifest in the pronouncements of its
individual members taken collectively, and therefore norms cannot
exist unless they are internalized in sufficient numbers of the
individual members of the society. This is the basis for my
believing that a high correlation exists between the words of
individuals and the norms of the society.

This argument is documented repeatedly by anthropological

2A

25

field research. In fact, one of the earlier difficulties of
anthropological research was the discrepancy between research
findings in which anthropologists used informants, and research

in which anthropologists became participant observers. The use of
informants involved asking questions in a hypothetical or
projective sense. Early anthropologists thus learned what the
societally sponsored rules and norms were, but they did not report
or account for variation from the rules and norms. Only when
anthropologists began to realize that a variance existed did they
begin to ask questions about procedure. And this led to a high
awareness of and accommodation to differences between word and deed.

An individual who is immersed in a human exchange of some sort
has his own self image and self interest at stake. These
subjective factors may, I believe, disturb the correlation between
individual word and societal norm, and effectively reduce it. what
may occur is that instead of a high correlation between individual
word and societal norm, we may find a lower correlation between
individual deed and societal norm. The individual, having invested
of himself in the exchange would, it seems,have a higher tendency
to forsake the norms of the group than would one who has not
literally invested of himself.

I believe that the hypotheses presented earlier in the
proposal are normatively oriented. That is, Homans' conceptions
and my derivations of distributive justice should be the consensus
arrived at in a poll of the sufficiently socialized members of
this society. Normatively speaking, the results hypothesized

should obtain.

26

It therefore seems logical to test these hypotheses in a
normative frame of reference. The argument here is that, since
conceptions of distributive justice are normative and therefore
hypothetical, it is most logical to test them using a research
design based on hypothetical constructs. The best results (i.e.,
the highest correlation) should be obtained using this type of
design. If a high correlation were found, strong evidence in
support of the normativeness of the principle of distributive
justice would be gained. Instead of assuming the normativeness
of the principle of distributive justice, there would be evidence
to support the normativeness of the principle. In addition, as
will be pointed out, the hypotheses constructed are not as
relevant to experimental research as they are to a test of the
normativeness of the rules.

Later experimental research, in which the individual has
subjectively invested, will probably yield a lower correlation
between the deed and the norm once the norm has been established.
Assuming that the principle of distributive justice can be
established as normative in this society, and assuming that the
correlation would drop in eXperimental research, we could shift
the focus to the individual psychological factors and predis-
positions which may be the cause of the variant correlation
between the words of individuals and societal norms on the one
hand, and the deeds of individuals and societal norms on the
other.

The logical order of research, then, is first to investigate

the normativeness of the principle of distributive justice for this

27

society, second to test new hypotheses concerning the suspected

and predicted variance between words and norms, and deeds and norms
already discussed, and third to attempt to isolate and measure

the psychological factors involved. The hypotheses already
formulated are most directly related to the first of these three
logical necessities, because they deal directly with normative

expectations.

CHAPTER FOUR
Procedures
A word must be said about the questionnaires used in the
actual implementation of the research (APPENDIX A). The
questionnaires are designated FORM A through FORM H. There are

eight questionnaires, but only four exchange relationships. Forms
4.

A and B reflect the type of situation one would find in an 3+

exchange; FORM A corresponds to the position of the A+ individual
B: exchange, and FORM B corresponds to the position of the
B+ individual in an 2: exchange. Similarly, FORM C corresponds

to the position of the A+ individual in an 3: exchange, and FORM
D corresponds to the position of the B- individual in an S:

in an

exchange, and so on (see TABLE 3).

TABLE 3
FORM corresponds to POSITION in an EXCHANGE
l. A A+ g:
2. a B+ 2:
3. c A+ a:
A. D a” g:
5. E A‘ g:
6. F B+ 3:
7. B A' (g:

28

29

FORM corresponds to POSITION in an EXCHANGE
_ . A-
B. H B B-

Any considerations of the normative nature of exchange in
which authority is not a factor have been eliminated from this
preliminary research. That is, none of the forms used in the
research corresponds to an exchange in which the participants have
equal authority. The purpose here is to concentrate only on those
exchangesin which both authority and ability are investments.
Consideration of equal authority, which effectively removesthe
authority factor, can be added at a later time. This, as well as
other possible considerations, will be mentioned in the section on
suggestions for further research.

These questionnaires were distributed in one of the following
two classes at Michigan State University on the dates and at the

times indicated:

 

COURSE TIME DATE ENROLLMENT
Behavior of Youth 7:OO P.M. 5/23/66 A36.
(Sociology A32)

Public Opinion and Propaganda 7:OO P.M. 5/24/66 25h.

(Sociology #51)

These two courses were selected for two reasons. First, the
content of these courses is such that they should attract students
from a wide range of major fields. In this way, I hoped to get a
fairly representative sample of the people in this university
community both horizontally (across major fields) and vertically
(across class boundaries). Secondly, as indicated by the course
enrollments, a large number of students was accessible.

Both wishes were fulfilled. Among the respondents is a wide

3O

range of students with various majors. Although no claim is made
concerning a truly representative sample, the sample included is
at least much less biased than it could be. Of major concern was
getting at least some sort of horizontal cross section. Across
class boundaries, respondents range from the sophomore undergraduate
to the Ph.D. candidate. So at least some sort of vertical sample
was managed, even though no attempt was made to classify it
systematically. No painstaking process was used to insure
representativeness of the sample, and little classification of the
data according to sex, age, class, and major was attempted. These
data were collected with the thought that a more extensive
analysis in which these variables would be controlled would be
attempted at a later date.

The preliminary breakdown of respondents given in the
following table will provide a general impression of some of the

characteristics of the sample.

31

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 4
MALE L FEMALE
Age Number Class Number : Age Number Class Number
18 O Freshman O E 18 3 Freshman 4
19 ll 19 29
20 34 Sophomore 20 20 54 Sophomore 34
'21 57 21 ' 79
22 44 Junior 58 22 38 Junior BO
23 19 23 ll
24 10 Senior 90 24 6 Senior 91
25 9 25 7
26 5 Graduate 48 26 1 Graduate 32
27 6 27 2
28 5 Other 1 2B 1 Other 1
29 2 3O 1
3O 1 32 2
31 2 36 l
32 2 4O 2
33 l 42 l
34 l 49 2
35 2 5O 1
37 l 55 1
3B 1
39 1
41 l
42 l
47 1
Total 217 217 Total 242 242

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER FIVE

Results and Interpretation

This section is devoted largely to a tabulation of the results

obtained from the administration of the questionnaires. TABLE 5

is a very general look at the data, and should be self-explanatory.

TABLE 5

FORM

 

D E F G H Total

 

43 54 56 56 GO 426

 

17 5 4 6 6 59

 

 

60 59 6O 62 66 485

 

 

TABLE 6 is

number of respondents indicating a 50-50 split
of the cash prize.

number of respondents indicating other than a
50-5O split of the cash prize.

an extension of TABLE 5. It lists numbers of

respondents replying in certain ways, and how these replies

relate to each other as expressed in decimal form.

The reader's attention is called here to the overwhelming

percentage of respondents who, given the context related in the

questionnaire, would split the profits 50-50, and the additional

percentage who would do so specifically because the task was a

team effort.

32

TABLE 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FORM
A B C D E F G H Total
52 49 56 43 54 56 56 60 426
59 57 62 60 59 60 62 66 485
.883 .86 .904 .717 .916 .934 .903 .91 .879
45 43 42 33 33 41 33 24 294
.865 .878 .75 .768 .611 .732 .589 .40 .689
.763 .755 .678 .55 .559 .684 .532 .394 .607
8nl = number of respondents indicating a 50-50 split of
the cash prize.
bn - n + n
3 T l 2'
c .
n,+ - nl/n3 in dec1mals.
d

n = number of 50-50 split respondents specifically
mentioning "team effort" as a reason.

n = nS/n1 in decimals.

n = nS/n3 in deClmals.

TABLE 7 is an analysis of only that data which indicate some
split other than 50-50. This TABLE represents only 12.16 percent
of all the data, and is obviously only a very small proportion of
the total sample. The rationale for this analysis will be
presented later.

In order to better understand how the totals presented in

TABLE 7 were obtained, the reader is referred to APPENDIX C. In

APPENDIX C are listed the other than 50-50 percentage splits and

the reasons for those differential splits.

34

These are categorized

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

by FORM.
TABLE 7
a n b n c
2 B 9
22:2. 3 :2: iii:
FORM SEA; 2 322222 23:33
FORM Still. 2 1‘3? @233
FORM 33%; i7; 12%? 33:22
FORM SEAS. 2 333 32:88
FORM 331.2. 2: 338 23:83
FORM SEAS. 2 it??? 23:32
a; 2 :3: 232:;
an2 = number of respondents indicating other than 50-50
split of the cash prize.
bn8 = total of percentage splits for self and for other in
each FORM (see APPENDIX C).
Cn9 = nB/n2 in percent. This means that of the seven

respondents to questionnaire FORM A who would split
the profits other than 50-50, the mean split would be
67.86 percent for self and 32.14 percent for other,
and so on.

Statements 1 through 4 which follow are an extension of
TABLE 7. Going back to the questionnaires used, the reader is
asked to recall that in each FORM, the respondent was asked to
determine a split of the profits between himself and his partner.

Thus, if a respondent replied with 60-40, this meant that he would

35

keep 60 percent of the profits for himself, and give 40 percent
of the profits to his partner.

Now, suppose that a respondent to FORM C replied with 65-35,
and a respondent to FORM 0 replied with 25-75. It is feasible
that these two respondents could actually have been in an
exchange. That is, the respondent to FORM C could have been the
A+ individual in an 3: exchange, and the respondent to FORM 0
could have been the 8- individual in an 3: exchange. It is
obvious that were this situation actually to arise, there would

have to be some bargaining between the participants before a

compatible split were determined.

PARTICIPANT A PARTICIPANT 8
Self Other Self Other
Split 65 35 25 75

Suppose that these two participants bargain, and decide on the

following split:

PARTICIPANT A PARTICIPANT B
Self Other Self Other
Split 70 30 30 70

The point being made is that the percentages of the self-other
split for one participant are reversed for the other participant.
The 70 percent "self" share for participant A is the same as the
70 percent "other" share for participant B.

Statements 1 through 4 are the result of this line of
thinking. what I have done is add the FORM C other than 50-50
gglfi responses to the FORM D other than 50-50 22883 responses, and
then divide that sum by the gym of the number of self responses on

FORM C and the number of other responses on FORM 0, and so on. For

further

1.

36

clarification, see APPENDIX F.

The FORM A self - FORM 8 other calculation is for the
+

A+ individual in an 2+ exchange, and the FORM A
other - FORM 8 self calculation is for the 51+ individual
in an A: exchan e A: = 67'hh

a 9 ° 8 = 32.55

The FORM C self - FORM D other calculation is for the
+

A+ individual in an 3- exchange, and the FORM C

other - FORM 0 self calculation is for the 8- individual
+ +

. A A = 72.22

in an 8- exchange. 8- = 27 74

The FORM E self - FORM F other calculation is for the

AT individual in an 3+ exchange, and the FORM E

other - FORM F self calculation is for the B+ individual

= 52.22
= 47.77

in n A+ e h n e A:
a B xc a g . B

The FORM G self - FORM H other calculation is for the

A- individual in an 2- exchange, and the FORM G

other - FORM H self calculation is for the 8‘ individual

in n A: exch n e A: = 51'8
a a a 9 ' a s 48.2

There are responses to a few of the questionnaires which seem

to be wholly facetious. I know that I am making a value judgment

when I say this, so I have added APPENDIX D, in which I have quoted

those responses. In this way, the reader can make his own

judgments about these few responses. I know that I am tampering

with the data but all of these calculations were done again with

these few cases removed.

later.

Doing so will support a point to be made

37

All the calculations were done in two additional ways. In

one, all the data are included -- 50-50 splits and other than

50-50 splits. In the other, all those data which seem facetious

whether they were 50-50 or other than 50-50 splits are excluded.

Following is a summary statement of all the calculations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 8
NON 50-50 DATA NON 50-50 DATA
(Facetious responses removed)
A+ = 67.44 A+ = 65.51
+ (n = 15) + (n = 13)
A+ = 72.22 A+ = 72.22
_ (n = 23) _ (n = 23)
a = 27.74 B = 27.74
A” = 52.22 A- = 46.25
+ (n = 9) + (n = 8)
B = 47.77 B = 53_75
A‘ = 51.8 A‘ = 51.8
_ (n = 12) _ (n = 12)
8 = 48.2 B = 48.2
TABLE 9
ALL DATA ALL DATA
(except facetious responses)
A+ = 52.26 8+ = 51-77 ’
+ (n = 116) + (n = 11“.)
B = 47.74 B = 48.23
A+ = 54.19 A+ = 54.19
(n = 122) _ (n = 122)
8' = 45.80 8 = 45.80
A‘ = 50.17 A' = 49.75
(n = 119) + (n = 118)
8+ = 49.83 8 = 58.25
A' = 58.17 A' = 50.17
(n = 128) _ (n = 127)
8‘ = 49.83 B = 49.83

 

 

 

 

38

TABLE 10, which Follows, is a four-fold arrangement of the

analysis of the actual data accumulated for all other than 50-50
+

split responses which are relevant to the g- and 2+ exchanges.

 

TABLE 18

A+ A‘
71.8 52
28.1 48

8‘ 8+

 

TABLE 11 is a four-Fold arrangement of the analysis of the
actual data accumulated For the other than 50-50 split responses
with the facetious responses removed. As in TABLE 10, only those

4. .-
A

data relevant to the B- and 2+ exchanges are considered.

TABLE 118

72.22 46.25
27.74 53.75

 

 

aVertically placed percentages in TABLES 10 and 11 should
ideally add to 100 as they do in TABLE 2. Use of the slide
rule accounts for the inaccuracies.

Now, compare TABLES 10 and 11 with TABLE 2.

Interpretation of Results
The First results, and by far most important in their
implications for this research, are the overwhelming numbers of
respondents who replied with a 50-50 split (see APPENDIX B for

a selected list of such responses\). TABLE 6 indicates not only

39

that a very high percentage of respondents to each FORM gave a
58-50 reply, but that across all the questionnaires (each reflecting
a different situation), #26 of #85 respondents replied with a 50-50
split for a 58-50 response rate of .879. That 294 of those 426
respondents who would split 50-50 gave as their reason that the task
required "team effort" has some potential implications for the
principle of distributive justice.

Recall now an earlier statement made that people often act in
ways different from the way they say they would act. with this
statement in mind, consider these possible reasons for the
extremely high percentage of 50-50 responses in this research.

There were eight rather divergent situations into which the
respondents were asked to project themselves, and there are two
facts which need explanation. why did such a majority dictate a
50-58 split? The 294 of the 426 respondents who would split the
profits 58-50 explicitly mentioned in their reasons the fact of
"team effort.“ That more than 68 percent of 485 total respondents
replied that they would split the profits 58-50 because the task
was a "team effort" -- regardless of the situational factors --
must be considered.

There are several possible explanations for this outcome.
First of all, even though this society operationalizes the free
enterprise system to some extent, there is yet an undercurrent
of fair play. Many of our sports (football, baseball, basketball,
and hockey to name a few) are team sports. To be sure, there are
many outstanding individual performers, but to say that John Unitas

wins all the football games for the Baltimore Colts is just not

#0

true. The functioning unit is the Colts, not John Unitas. when
the Colts won the play-off game with the Dallas Cowboys in the
National Football League last season, Mr. Unitas was out of the game
with an injury. But he got his share of the profits from the game
simply because he was a member of the team. So too with all the
"bench warmers." The game winnings for the team were divided
equally among all those men whose names were on the team roster.
As I understand it, the profits from such playoff games are
split evenly to avoid the destruction of team morale and
identification. If the team members were differentially rewarded,
the risk of resentment would be run. As some of the respondents
to this survey asked, "who is to say which participant deserves
the greater share of the split?" Since the participants (or team
members) are individually involved in the taking of a share of the
profits, there is no way to be certain that the assessments are

being made 93 the same scale. And the more to a man's disadvantage

 

the principle of distributive justice fails of realization, the
more likely he is to display anger or resentment.19

The parallel between this "real world" situation (the Bolts)
and the hypothetical one in the survey is illuminating. The
cooperative-competitive spirit permeates this society; most people
in this society are enculturated to it before they reach adolescence.
Is it any wonder that, in order not to violate the "team effort"

context, most respondents would split the profits 58-58?

This society is then a strange admixture of competition and

 

19Homans, p. 75.

hl

cooperation. Competition is appropriate, even demanded, at one
place and time. But cooperation and sharing are the rule at
another place and time. The appropriateness of competition or
cooperation is largely situational.

The situation in this research design was a team type task, and
as a number of respondents replied, it required a team effort -- win,
lose, or draw. The spirit was one of cooperation, and, as with the
Baltimore Colts, each gets his "fair" share.

Another factor is the actual nature of the situation,
objectively speaking. The respondent reads the questionnaire and
learns that he would be in a quiz show type context. He would
bring nothing, other than himself, to the arena, and may actually
consider himself fortunate in having been selected. Whether his
partner is a friend or a stranger is indeterminate. How he or his
partner was placed in a position of authority for final decisions,
or even why, is completely ambiguous. The task lacks seriousness
of purpose; it may even imply a "fun and games" atmosphere. Also
implied, through its connection with television quiz shows, is that
this is a "once and done" affair. The individual "plays the game"
just once with people he may never have seen before, and whom he
may never see again. The duration is very short, the situation is
circumstantial, and there is no real personal commitment to the
task or to the other people involved. In short, the implication
is that the situation is ephemeral, and as several respondents
have indicated,

why not split it 50-50? There is so little money involved
that it is hardly worth quibbling about. what is the

42

sense in rocking the boat? I am lucky to have won

any money at all.

what has been said up to now regarding this SB-SD response
pattern seems to indicate one thing: given the context of the
situation into which respondents were asked to project themselves,
the norm is clearly a 50-58 profit split. Does this mean, then,
that the principle of distributive justice, as it has been
formulated, is not valid? I think not. Several things are
indicated by these results, among them the situational
characteristics of the application of the principle of distributive
justice. Although the results of this survey would seem to
indicate otherwise, the principle of distributive justice could
still hold, and it could hold in a situation such as that described
in the questionnaires. That large numbers of the respondents
indicated a 58-50 split of the profits does not mean that there
would be no basis for a differential profit split. A 50-58 split
of the monetary profits does not preclude the possibility of there
being other profits which would perhaps ggt be split 58-50, profits
such as the subtle types of psychological profits which may be
gained from such an exchange. The sheer knowledge of superiority,
either in ability, authority, or both, could have so much
psychological profit that the money is inconsequential (see
APPENDIX B). In addition, as revealed by several respondents,
there is the possibility that a sort of social contract factor is
relevant. A number of people gave as reasons for a 58-58 split
the following general argument:

I agreed to enter this task as a team member. I knew

#3

what the rules of the game were, and knew what I
was getting into before I ever agreed to participate.
This other person is here under the same conditions,

and he is putting in his time, just as am I.

Although this is not a direct quote from any one respondent, the
point made by a number of people is that they knew about the
situation, and agreed to participate under those conditions
irrespective of the outcome. The implication is that the
respondent has a social obligation to be aware of allthis, and to
act accordingly.

In conclusion, the results obtained cannot be ignored. But
these results do not refute the possibility of a principle of
distributive justice as formulated, or that the principle is
effective in social situations in this society.

These results indicate two important things. First, the
manifestation of the principle of distributive justice seems to be
situational. On one extreme, perhaps all the investments and
profits of an exchange are psychological. 8n the other hand,
perhaps these elements are largely monetary, or can be measured
largely in monetary terms. However, the psychological manifests—4
tions of these elements are never wholly absent in any exchange --
even in a strictly economic exchange. Saying that the manifesta-
tions of the principle of distributive justice seem largely
situational is to say that each exchange is in a context which
probably lies somewhere between the strictly psychological on one
extreme, and is, or could be, an admixture of psychological and
economic factors on the other.

The second important thing which these results indicate is

Ah

the probable irrelevance of the vehicle for teasing out what surely
must be there. The tool used was not relevant to the job which
was expected to be done, and is still of interest. The situations
into which the respondents were asked to project themselves were not
strong enough, nor do they seem to be of a nature appropriate to
bring out the results anticipated. Again, no claim is made that
the results of this study are invalid, or should be ignored. But
also, these results do not seem to invalidate or call into question
the plausibility of the principle of distributive justice.

what is needed is a more relevant vehicle. An exchange must
be formulated where the stakes -- both psychological and economic --
are higher, where the commitment is highly personal and at a higher
level, and where the risk is greater. A situation is needed where
the participants are really commited and where the "team effort"
criterion is absent. If this could be done, a much lower percentage
of 50-50 splits would seem appropriate. These criteria also tends
to support what seems to have been revealed in the study actually
undertaken, that is, the manifestation of the principle seems

situational.

Given, and admitting, that 88 percent of the respondents indicated
a SB-SB split, there is not much that can be done with any numerical
analysis. The mean of 52 58-58 splits is still 58-50, and so on.
In addition, if the 52 58-50 splits are added to the 7 splits which
were not 58-58 (FORM A), a mean different from SB-SB is obtained, as
has already been shown. But how representative is a 52.26 - 47.74

split if the reader is not informed that 88 percent of the respondents

AS

did indicate a 50-50 split? How representative are those 52.26 -
h7-7h split percentages even if the reader is informed of the
nature of those data? They are not representative at all. To say

that, of the 116 people who responded to FORM A or FORM B, the
+

mean percentage of the split of the profits for an 2+ exchange
. 52.26 . . g .
18 “7.7“ 18 completely mislead1ng.

Consequently, attention is drawn only to those data which
indicate a split other than 58-58 (see TABLE 8). To be sure, there
is a danger in doing so. what happens is that by turning attention
only to these cases, the relative comfort and safety of large
numbers is lost and the dangers of a very small (in fact, too
small) number of responses are assumed.

So, without being dogmatic, and without pointing to the data
as strong support for the validation of any of the hypotheses, I
will briefly discuss the other than 50-50 split data. In TABLE 8
one readily sees that there is some support for the hypotheses made
which are relevant to these conditions. From the left hand column
of TABLE 8, the only data which run counter to the hypotheses are
in the 2: exchange. That is, Hypothesis VII states that B+ would
be greater than A-. Be aware also that "n" = 9, a very small
number. In addition, if the one apparently facetious response is
removed from these data (and thereby reduce "n" to 8) all the
hypotheses would be supported. The simple presence or removal of
one set of responses then determines the support or invalidation
of the hypotheses, thus further demonstrating the dangers inherent
in a very small "n".

There is nothing to be gained from insisting that this very

AG

small "n" is a bona-fide and representative indication. what can
be gained from a long look at the non-SD-SD split data are some
indicators of what could be expected were a more appropriate
vehicle devised and implemented. APPENDIX C is a listing by
FDRM, by percentage split, and by reason, of all those non-SD-SD
responses. Since the "n" is relatively small, all this
information is included. A study of that data is enlightening,
for in the responses of these people are the rudiments of the very
thoughts which prompted a serious contemplation of the principle
of distributive justice. In APPENDIX C can be found, in the reasons
for an other than SD-SD split, SUpport for the contention that
authority and ability can be considered as investments, and the
cash award can be considered a profit. while some respondents do
use these actual terms to identify the factors in the situation,
and some do not, all respondents (except those giving very curt
or facetious responses) use terms synonymous with ability,
authority, and profits.

were not the "n" in the non-5D-SD responses so small, I
would be willing to be more definitive in interpretation of the
results, and more willing to take a stronger stand. For example,
if just one response is removed (one which I believe facetious)
from the total set of #85 collected, the results of the study are
shifted from the invalidation of one of the relevant hypotheses
to support for all relevant hypotheses. Removing that one
response (see APPENDIX C) is highly questionable in the first
place, and removing it will result in a reversed percentage split

in the 2+ exchange in the second place even if the 58-50 split

#7

data are included in the analysis (see TABLE 9). These simple
recognitions are what force a questioning of the strength of these
findings in the first place, and which indicate, in conclusion,
that the results of this survey are very instructive, but are
certainly not definitive or supply conclusive evidence for the

SUpport or invalidation of the principle of distributive justice.

CHAPTER SIX

Suggestions for Further Research

From this point, research could go in any number of directions.
First on the agenda would be a complete re-evaluation of the research
vehicle. It seems, from what has been learned from the results of
the design used in this study, that the principle of distributive
justice is evasive. Comments made by many of the respondents
indicate that there is a lack of personal commitment, little risk,
inconsequential reward, and a "fun and games" type atmosphere in
the hypothetical situation used in this research. All of this is
in addition to the ephemeral nature of the situation. To obtain
more substantial results, these lighthearted criteria which
indicate the inappropriateness of the vehicle must be replaced with
criteria which would have real personal consequences.

Secondly, it seems that it would be advisable to run a pretest
to determine if what was attempted had in fact been accomplished --
that is, the re-orientation of the vehicle to reduce the numbers
and percentages of SD-SD responses. If this were accomplished, it
would then be desirable to implement an extensive survey.

It would than be necessary, and probably informative, to
compare the results of that study with the results of this study to
determine what factors were instrumental in causing the
differential results. This comparative analysis may yield some
insights into the functioning and manifestations of the principle
of distributive justice. That is, were results significantly
different, and were the vehicles different, an argument for the
nature of the situation as a determinant of the outcome may

#8

#9

possibly be established. More specifically, if the ability factor
were more relevant and associated with some kind of long range
developmental situation in which the individual had a real
personal commitment and in which his performance had signiflicance
for his having reached a position of authority, substantiation for
the thought that the manifestations of the principle of
distributive justice may be at least in part situational would be
obtained. From there, some extensive comparative analyses of
situations could be done even if they involved the formulation of
several exchange relationships of varying degrees of strength and
significance.

In APPENDIX A, the reader will notice that on some of the
forms a total team profit figure of Elk-517 was used, while on
others, a total team profit figure of $h-38 was used. These
figures were selected to try to force the respondent to think
specifically. For example, in FDRM A, the respondent disagreed
with his partner a large number of times, but was nonetheless the
team member submitting decisions. Given: 1) that the respondent
was team decision maker; 2) that he and his partner both had
high ability; 3) that they often disagreed with each other; and
A) that his responses were thon correct, it was hoped that he
would think of himself highly, and therefore would tend to reward
himself.

0n the other hand, what kind of response pattern would have
evolved in the other than 50-50 splits if the team had won only
$5.08? would the respondent to FDRM A then think less of himself

for submitting the wrong responses, and therefore split the profits

50

differently in an attempt to punish himself? would some different
split indicate an attempt at social control, as indicated by the
last response in APPENDIX C? This same line of thinking could be
applied as well to the other exchanges and the situations
individually occupied.

In earlier discussion of survey research, an awareness of the
inconsistency between what people say they would do were they in
any given situation and what they actually do when in that
situation was indicated. These considerations open a whole new
range of research.

It would be no problem to adapt the research design being
used in the ongoing laboratory experimental research being conducted
by Santo F. Camilleri et al., to test the situational character-
istics of the principle of distributive justice. This would be just
one rubric under which to test the principle; others of varying
degrees of strength could be formulated, and the results then
comparatively analyzed.

Another interesting direction for research would be to turn
more toward the psychological and of the continuum. Some progress
is being made in the measurement of psychological variables. And
to be sure, there are probably diverse psychological costs,
investments, rewards, and profits rampant in these exchanges.
what the psychological manifestations of these variables may be
would be difficult to say. Identifying these variables is one
problem in and of itself; measuring them is an altogether
different matter. It would be problematic enough to identify these

variables, psychologically speaking, let alone try to obtain

51

approximations of their strength or magnitude. Never the less,
the subjective psychology of exchange remains as one possible
avenue for the extension of this research.

The research could also be extended vertically, by adding a
third, fourth, or more members to the exchange, and horizontally,

by adding or considering more variables.20

For example, equal
authority could be incorporated into the design to expand it
horizontally.

Another horizontal type consideration would be to include and
consider average ability. In the research implemented, and that
suggested, consideration has been given only to high ability, low
ability, or both. Average ability could be introduced in any
combination with the growing list of variables already considered.

Another concretely manifest variable (investment) which has
been isolated, in addition to ability and authority, is status.
One could select or introduce the participants as individuals with
differential status, and could as well vary the degree of
differential in status. 0f course, the more widely disparate
the statuses of the two participants, the wider should be the

differential split of the profits from any exchange in which such

participants may be engaged, all other variables accounted for.

Summary

This research was implemented for the purpose of investigating

 

ZDGenerally speaking, the term vertical extension refers to
adding more participants, and horizontal extension refers to
introducing new variables, or variations to those already considered.

52

the normativeness of the principle of distributive justice. First,
a partial formalization of George Homans' work was attempted, then
a survey was implemented to determine whether the relationships
established are normative in this society.

Results indicate that the principle of distributive justice
may be situational. That is, the outcome, or profits, from a
social exchange may be determined by the situational nature of the FF
exchange. And in addition, the investments, costs, rewards, and
profits in any exchange seem to vary between the strictly
psychological on one extreme, and some admixture of the

psychological and economic on the other.

 

IT

The research was designed to test the validity of hypotheses
related to the general hypothesis that the greater the investments
an individual has in any exchange situation, the greater should be
his profits from that exchange. Although results of the survey
tend to support the hypotheses formulated before the research was
implemented, more research is necessary to establish any strong

support for the hypotheses.

APPENDIX A

The eight forms which follow (labeled A through H) are
samples of those actually used in the research. As is obvious,
a survey type design was used in this research, along with a
counterfactual-conditional statement. were the attempt anything
other than a determination of the normative nature of the
principle of distributive justice, this type of design would be at
least questionable. However, since the purpose is just that --
to determine the normativeness of the principle of distributive
justice -- the counterfactual-conditional survey design is
justified.

Among REASDNS for deciding the split indicated in several
of these appendixes the reader will notice that words are
misspelled, grammar is sometimes incorrect, and that sentence
fragments are punctuated as complete sentences. All reasons are
as directly quoted as is possible, even to the extent that
symbols are used in this manuscript if symbols were used in the
response (e.g. ¢ for "cents"). All such errors and symbols, so

far as possible, were transposed verbatim into this text.

53

 

 

5h

FORM A

Sex: M F
Age:

 

Class:

 

Major:

 

DIRECTIONS: The following situation is purely hypothetical.
You are asked to project yourself into the position described
in the statement, than respond to the closing inquiry in the
manner you think you would were you actually in the position.

You are one of the two persons participating jointly in a task
involving multiple choice questions and answers. The two of you
are asked questions based on a knowledge of a wide range of
general information. As a team, you will be asked twenty such
questions. For each correct response, the team is awarded $1.00,
and for each incorrect response, the team receives no award.
Thus, the maximum that the team could win is $20.00, and the
minimum is $0.00.

The rules dictate that there can be just gag team response
submitted per question. Imagine that you are the person who is
responsible for the answer submitted, and that your partner acts
as your advisor. That is, you discuss the question and the
alternative choices with your partner, but it is ygg who must
submit an answer as the team's response.

Further suppose that it is common knowledge between you and
your partner that each 9: ygg excels in this type of task.

Upon completion of the task you realize that:

1. you and your partner have nearly always disagreed on what
each of you thought was the correct answer.

2. the answers you submitted as the team's decisions were very
often correct.

In totaling the final score, your team has won filh to $17.
This money must be split between you and your partner. In your
opinion, how should this money be divided?

a. Percentage of the cash profits I should get: %.
b. Percentage of the cash profits he should get: %.
Briefly, why would you split the profits this way?

55

FORM 3

Sex: M F
Age:

 

Class:

 

Major:

 

DIRECTIONS: The following situation is purely hypothetical. You
are asked to project yourself into the position described in the
statement, then respond to the closing inquiry in the manner you
think you would were you actually in the position.

You are one of two persons participating jointly in a task
involving multiple choice questions and answers. The two of you
are asked questions based on a knowledge of a wide range of general
information. As a team, you will be asked twenty such questions.
For each correct response, the team is awarded $1.00, and for each
incorrect response, the team receives no award. Thus, the
maximum that the team could win is $20.00, and the minimum is $0.00.

The rules dictate that there can be just gag team response
submitted per question. Imagine that your partner is the person
who is responsible for the answer submitted, and that you act as
his advisor. That is, he discusses the question and the
alternative choices with you, but it is he who must submit an
answer as the team's response.

Further suppose that it is common knowledge between you and
your partner that each gfilygg excels in this type of task.

Upon completion of the task you realize that:

1. you and your partner have nearly always disagreed on what

each of you thought was the correct answer
2. the answers he submitted as the team's decisions were very

often correct.

In totaling the final score, your team has won 31h to $17.
This money must be split between you and your partner. In your
opinion, how should this money be divided?

 

a. Percentage of the cash profits I should get: %
b. Percentage of the cash profits he should get: %

Briefly, why would you split the profits this way?

56

FORM C

Sex: M F
Age:

 

Class:

 

Major:

 

DIRECTION: The following situation is purely hypothetical. You
are asked to project yourself into the position described in the
statement, than respond to the closing inquiry in the manner you
think you would were you actually in the position.

 

You are one of two persons participating jointly in a task
involving multiple choice questions and answers. The two of you
are asked questions based on a knowledge of a wide range of
general information. As a team, you will be asked twenty such
questions. For each correct response, the team is awarded $1.00,
and for each incorrect response, the team receives no award.
Thus, the maximum that the team could win is $20.00, and the .'
minimum is $0.00. LA

The rules dictate that there can be just ppg team response
submitted per question. Imagine that you are the Person who is
responsible for the answer submitted, and that your partner acts
as your advisor. That is,you discuss the question and the
alternative choices with your partner, but it is 12p who must
submit an answer as the team's response.

Further suppose that it is common knowledge between you and
your partner that ypp excel, and that your partner performs
poorly in this type of task.

Upon completion of the task you realize that:

1. you and your partner have nearly always disagreed on what

each of you thought was the correct answer
2. the answers you submitted as the team‘s decisions were very

often correct. ,

In totaling the final score, your team has won 314 to $17.

This money must be split between you and your partner. In your
opinion, how should this money be divided?

 

a. Percentage of the cash profits I should get: %.
b. Percentage of the cash profits he should get: %.

Briefly, why would you split the profits this way?

57

FORM 0

Sex: M F
Age:

 

Class:

 

Major:

 

DIRECTIONS: The following situation is purely hypothetical. You
are asked to project yourself into the position described in the
statement, then respond to the closing inquiry in the manner you
think you would were you actually in the position.

 

You are one of two persons participating jointly in a task
involving multiple choice questions and answers. The two of you
are asked questions based on a knowledge of a wide range of
general information. As a team, you will be asked twenty such
questions. For each correct response, the team is awarded $1.00,
and for each incorrect response, the team receives no award.
Thus, the maximum that the team could win is $20.00, and the
minimum is $0.00.

The rules dictate that there can be just pp; team response
submitted per question. Imagine that your partner is the
person who is responsible for the answer submitted, and that you
act as his advisor. That is, he discusses the question and the
alternative choices with you, but it is pp who must submit an
answer as the team's response.

Further suppose that it is common knowledge between you and
your partner that ypp perform oorl , and that pg excels in this
type of task.

Upon completion of the task you realize that:
1. you and your partner have nearly always disagreed on what
each of you thought was the correct answer
2. the answers he submitted as the team's decisions were very
often correct.
In totaling the final score, your team has won 31h to 31?.
This money must be split between you and your partner. In your
opinion, how should this money be divided?

8. Percentage of cash profits I should get: %.
b. Percentage of the cash profits he should get: %.

Briefly, why would you split the profits this way?

58

FORM E

Sex: M F
Age:

 

Class:

 

Major:

 

DIRECTIONS: The following situation is purely hypothetical. You
are asked to project yourself into the position described in the
statement, then respond to the closing inquiry in the manner you
think you would were you actually in the position.

You are one of two persons participating jointly in a task
involving multiple choice questions and answers. The two of you
are asked questions based on a knowledge of a wide range of
general information. As a team, you will be asked twenty such
questions. For each correct response, the team is awarded $1.00,
and for each incorrect response, the team receives no award.
Thus, the maximum that the team could win is $20.00, and the
minimum is $0.00.

The rules dictate that there can be just ppg team response
submitted per question. Imagine that you are the person who is
responsible for the answer submitted, and that your partner acts
as your advisor. That is, you discuss the question and the
alternative choices with your partner, but it is ygg who must
submit an answer as the team's response.

Further suppose that it is common knowledge between you and
your partner that ygg perform oorl , and that pg excels in this
type of task.

Upon completion of the task you realize that:

1. you and your partner have nearly always disagreed on what
each of you thought was the correct answer

2. the answers you submitted as the team's decisions were very
often correct.

In totaling the final score, your team has won 31h to $17.
This money must be split between you and your partner. In your
opinion, how should this money be divided?

 

8. .Percentage of the cash profits I should get: %.
b. Percentage of the cash profits he should get: %.

Briefly, why would you split the profits this way?

59

FORM F

Sex: M. F
Age:

 

Class:

 

Major:

 

DIRECTIONS: The following situation is purely hypothetical. You
are asked to project yourself into the position described in the
statement, then respond to the closing inquiry in the manner you
think you would were you actually in the position.

You are one of two persons participating jointly in a task
involving multiple choice questions and answers. The two of you
are asked questions based on a knowledge of a wide range of
general information. As a team, you will be asked twenty such
questions. For each correct response, the team is awarded $1.00,
and for each incorrect response, the team receives no award.
Thus, the maximum that the team could win is $20, and the
minimum is $0.00.

The rules dictate that there can be just ppg teem response
submitted per question. Imagine that your partner is the person
who is responsible for the answer submitted, and that you act
as his advisor. That is, he discusses the question and the
alternative choices with you, but it is pg who must submit an
answer as the team's response.

Further suppose that it is common knowledge between you and
your partner that ypp excel, and that your partner performs
poorly in this type of task.

Upon completion of the task you realize that:

I. you and your partner have nearly always disagreed on what
each of you thought was the correct answer

2. the answers he submitted as the team's decisions were very
often correct.

In totaling the final score, your team has won 31h to $17.
This money must be split between you and your partner. In
your opinion, how should this money be divided?

8. Percentage of the cash profits I should get: %.
b. Percentage of the cash profits he should get: %.

Briefly, why would you split the profits this way?

60

FORM 6

Sex: M F
Age:

 

Class:

 

Major:

 

DIRECTIONS: The following situation is purely hypothetical. You
are asked to project yourself into the position described in the
statement, then respond to the closing inquiry in the manner you
think you would were you actually in the position.

 

You are one of two persons participating jointly in a task
involving multiple choice questions and answers. The two of you
are asked questions based on a knowledge of a wide range of
general information. As a team, you will be asked twenty such
questions. For each correct response, the team is awarded $1.00,
and for each incorrect response, the team receives no award.
Thus, the maximum that the team could win is $20.00, and the
minimum is $0.00.

The rules dictate that there can be just ppg teem response
submitted per question. Imagine that you are the person who is
responsible for the answer submitted, and that your partner acts
as your advisor. That is, you discuss the question and the
alternative choices with your partner, but it is ypp_who must
submit an answer as the team's response.

Further suppose that it is common knowledge between you and
your partner that each 21 ypp performs poorly in this type of
task.

Upon completion of the task you realize that:

1. you and your partner have nearly always disagreed on what each
of you thought was the correct answer

2. the answers you submitted as the team's decisions were not
often correct.

In totaling the final score, your team has won SA to 88. This
money must be split between you and your partner. In your
opinion, how should this money be divided?

8. Percentage of the cash profits I should get: %.
b. Percentage of the cash profits he should get: %.

Briefly, why would you split the profits this way?

61

FORM H

Sex: M. F
Age:

 

Class:

 

Major:

 

DIRECTIONS: The following situation is purely hypothetical. You
are asked to project yourself into the position described in the
statement, then respond to the closing inquiry in the manner you
think you would were you actually in the position.

You are one of two persons participating jointly in a task
involving multiple choice questions and answers. The two of you
are asked questions based on a knowledge of a wide range of
general information. As a team, you will be asked twenty such
questions. For each correct response, the team is awarded 31.00,
and for each incorrect response, the team receives no award.
Thus, the maximum that the team could win is $20.00, and the
minimum is $0.00. Ill

The rules dictate that there can be just ppg teem response
submitted per question. Imagine that your partner is the
person who is responsible for the answer submitted, and that you
act as his advisor. That is, he discusses the question and the
alternative choices with you, but it is,pg who must submit an
answer as the team's response.

Further suppose that it is common knowledge between you and
your partner that each gfi_ypp performs poorly in this type. of
teak. '

Upon completion of the task you realize that:

1. you and your partner have nearly always disagreed on what

each of you thought was the correct answer
2. the answers he submitted as the team's decisions were not

often correct.

In totaling the final score, your team has won 8% to $8. 5
This money must be split between you and your partner. In your
opinion, how should this money be divided?

 

3. Percentage of the cash profits I should get: %.
b. Percentage of the cash profits he should get: %.

Briefly, why would you split the profits this way?

APPENDIX B

This selection of responses is included so that the reader
can get some idea of the kinds of 50-50 response patterns which
were submitted. An attempt was made to include response
patterns which were representative, but at the same time reveal
the scope and depth of the thinking of some of the respondents.

The reader should also be aware of the fact that these are
data from just 71 of the 485 respondents. That is only 1h.56
percent of all responses submitted. were someone else making
these selections, the content of this appendix would probably

be different from what it is.

FORM REASON
A Cooperative effort involved - 50-50 split only fair
and mutually satisfactory way to divide.
A I could have been wrong just as easily and the take

might have been lower. Anyway, I've got 87 I
wouldn't have had otherwise. This saves haggling
over a petty thing.

A I probably wouldn't like doing it this way, but I'd
probably have made an agreement with my partner
before-hand to split whatever we might win in half.
It at the and, considering what had happened above,
if he (or she) were to offer to give me a larger
share I wouldn't refuse. But I wouldn't fight
over a few dollars, since I don't think it's worth
it!:

A A) Both spent equal time at the contest
8) Both are capable of excelling at this kind of a task
C) There is no diplomatic way to suggest an unequal
division without making him seem unimportant
D) The DID-IA isn't worth the uncomfortable situation

A Having entered the contest as a two-man team, one
would divide equally the total earned irregardless
of who had more correct answers. I would not extend
this judgement to occupation when differences in skill
and ammount of effort required determine who get what.
The team effort gave the product each man excelling,
each giving opinions. Other life events don't have
the attitude of cooperation in contest.

62

 

FORM

63

REASON

As it was a team action, win or lose, as in any team
action, it (profit) should be divided on an equal
basis, wether credit or blame - besides my conscious
would bother me if it weren't split 50-50. Any team
has weaknesses 8 strengths which must be shared by the
whole.

So as not to "make waves." Also, it is possible that some

of my right answers might have been arrived at through

our mutual discussion. Finally, I would assume that we

had made a compact for a 50-50 split before beginning

since we had common knowledge between us that we "each F‘r
excel" in this type task. [

Because on this assignment each of us were partners and
responsible to the other. Perhaps it was an off~day

for partner and I know it could in turn be a bad day for
me.

Besides the profits aren't that great

There were probably alternative motives involved in
participating ._-
And next time I'd first get another partner!

 

You went into the question-answer test with knowledge
of the rules and that it was a "joint“ undertaking.
Regardless of disagreement over the answers the
partnership was in force 8 so division of money
benefits equally should follow the participation.

In my opinion, this team task involves what I would
consider to be equilalence of concern and mental
involvement.

This was a team effort and as a two man team each
member gets 50% be it half of twenty or half of nothing.

I would assume that the points brought up by me in the
discussion helped reinforce my partner belief. After
all, we both excel!

Because of the structure of the situation - The
decisions are joint even though only one responds. The
burden of proof is split so that each has an equal
obligation to prove his answer to be right. The fruits.
of this obligation are the result of discussion a should
be split equally.

Because this was a team effort, the split should be
50-50, If it had not been agreed ahead that it would be
a beam effort - than a different arrangement could have
been made.

Both of us would have spent the same amt. of time 8
thought, approx., in answering these questions. The
task was supposed to be a team effort and in one way or

FORM

64

REASON

another, both participated. This division would avoid
any possible conflict on the split of $3.

because this was a team effort. The one fellow just
might have been rattled a bit this time. Both

probably feel disgruntled. Don't rock the boat by
placing value points on the worth of each's participation.

Easy come and easy go - why cause strife between you 8
your partner over such a small amount of money.

The profits should be split this way since these are the
rules of the game. The knowledge that you excel over F”'
your partner was known before the game was started. It
could well have been assumed that your answers would most
often be correct. with this knowledge, you agreed to
play the game 8 play by the rules set. Since you made
this agreement in the beginning, the profits should thus
be divided as agreed upon by both of you (50% 8 50%).

If I am on the team, it means I should have considered ,
the pros and cons, i.s. strength and weaknesses of -4
myself and my partner, how I would feel if I used his

answers knowing he does not excel, etc.. If, weighing

these factors carefully in my mind, I decided to go

ahead and enter the team situation, I should be willing,

and determined to accept the results as a team

(1.8. - 50% - 50%).

Because: even though I might fleel I should have more,
I would be obligated to give my pardner half - code of
the road, sort of thing.

A game is to test one's skill and stimulate "thinking."
I consider the situation described a game and the factor
of chance that I drew such a partner is something I must
put up with. Intellectual thinking is not (in this
situation) something to be paid for if the factor of
higher intelligence come in. The parter put his

effort into answering.

 

Although I believe that I am a very competitive

person, the fact that we were to work with each other
"as a team," it would only be fair that we share the
reward. A team may have good 8 poor players, yet the
team, as a whole is credited with a winning effort. I
know I would feel badly if I were the poorer of the two
team members 8 got a smaller share of the reward. I
would not feel this way because I got less money, but
because someone else decided my contribution to the
team effort was less than someone elses.

without a partner, he or anybody else, I wouldn't have
gotten a cent so he was just as important as I was in
winning.

FORM

65

REASON

Each partner was doing what the agreement seemed to
indicate. The fact that I was able to make better
decisions should not effect the distribution of
rewards. If this arrangement was to be of more than
temporary duration, however, I would probably go
looking for another partner.

Because we were performing as a team, not for
ourselves alone. The fact that I had contributed
more means nothing in the outcome. Perhaps my
partner does well in another area 8 had we been
performing as a team there, l would have been the
weaker partner.

why be bastardly for 3 or A dollars? If stakes were

_higher, and I was convinced I was instrumental in

achieving a high score I would feel deserving of a
greater percentage.

why shouldn't I split the money fifty-fifty. Regardless
of my ability there is no reason to do personal harm

to the other person. I lose nothing if I give it all to
him. Anything I get is a gain. And to this ”gain”,

of course, I may add a personal feeling of well-being
for being such a nice guy.

I entered the contest on a partnership basis. The rules
were fair and made clear before the start of it. I
therefore believe since it took both his and my time

and talents that the money should be divided evenly.

Had I answered them all correctly and he poorly the same
would go. This is what I call a parternership risk.

Two of us were needed and fate determined who would
excell. The only fair way to both is 1/2 8 1/2.
Obviously if we disagreed but yet won a lot of money

it must not have been too badly a team effort.

If the money were to be split in any other way, it
should have been previously stated. Both people are
taking on equal amount of time and are using their
knowledge to the best of their abilities. There is no
reason, even if one seems to be incorrect, for that
one to be penalized.

l. A team effort - 2 members - 50-50

2. Even though your responses would not have been as
rewarding as his your reaction to the questions
served a useful purpose to your partner -
reinforcing his convictions - or making him
further justify his answers.

Doesn't make any difference how smart my partner is -
it is the principle of a fair deal.

I would of course ask him if this would be all right

FORM

66

REASON
with him, and if he wanted more, I would say all right.

we are a team if you want the money divided any other
way everyone should be on their own.

This is a team approach. They entered the task as a
team 8 I am assuming voluntarily thus they should
split the profits. One could not work without the
other even though one might be more capable.

Because of the structure of the task both have as much
to lose (less than 20) as the other (the 2 individuals)
both being equally committed it would seem logical
that in order to maintain harmoney it should have been
decided before - and this would be I assume a 50/50 %
bargain - (actually the reason is partily to avoid
arguement, given more alternatives I might have been
able to given a different answer).

This small amount of money isn't worth quibbling about.
Probably he deserves more, but how much more is

difficult to say, probably best thing is to redistribute
teams, next time, any division is arbitrary, but perhaps
the illusion of equality is best 8 easiest to maintain.

Because we are a team. when two are engaged in a
project, irrespective of the talents or levels of
intelligence - the law of fairness which should

I undergird a team predominates - 1.8., 50-50. If one
is so much more superior, he would be wise to work alone.

1. He is a partner.

2. The decision making was collective.

3. He expertise was needed as a primary factor despite
the ensuing results.

4. I sure wouldn't settle for less than half if I was
him.

Both of us have played an equal part in the task. Even
though he might excell at this type of thing, I had to
make the final decision about whether or not his
answers appeared correct. Even though he made up the
answer, I would be responsible for us as a team.

Because it is a team effort which generally is to be
considered a 50-50 proposition. The fact that it is
common knowledge that he performs better has given him
the opportunity to enjoy this superiority 8 me to be
considered inferior which is not a situation that I
would enjoy.

FORM

67

REASON

Unless agreed upon before hand, that the money would be
divided in a higher percentage for the smarter member, I
feel that a 50-50 division would be the most equitable -
the total cash award is negligible in amount, 8 hardly
worth arguing over 8 trying to divide - the partnership
though unequal - would best benefit from an equal split -
no hard feelings between one offended person or the other.

This is the easy, middle-of-the-road way out. That's
what I usually take. However, if my partner objected

in the least way, I would give in 8 give him a larger
percentage. If I was responsible for the decision but
my partner made most of the right decisions I would give
him a larger share.

First of all, it was a team task. Secondly, although

I made the final decision, my partner (advisor) helped
me to make that fieal decision. Even though we ‘
disagreed initially, to rack up 314 to $17, I must have
taken his advice at some time.

I would split the profits this way because each person
participated on an equal basis. I am assuming that the
other person was chosen arbitrarily as the one to
submit the answers 8 therefore is not in any way more
in charge of the situation. They should each equally
share the rewards 8 failures.

The sum of money and the amount of work involved is not
great enough, to bother with figuring out who should get
more.

I would not subject any person to a feeling of inferiority.
The money issue is a sensitive one between individuals
and may result in the loss of friendship. I would value
the personal relationship much more than I would the
money.

I would assume we entered as a team, therefore placing
equal responsibility on each of us. Reward would not
be based upon who answers.

If, however, this was extended over a period of time,
something should be worked out where the partner who
continually excelled should be justly awarded.

I would question first, if it is common knowledge that

I excell. It is obvious that in this instance my
decisions were correct - But it none the less is a team
project. Being a woman of little greed, I am willing to
share equally. Perhaps if the stakes were higher, I
would not be so inclined. Further it was agreed ahead

FORM

68

REASON
of time that it was a joint task.

Because it is a team effort, I would have split it
50-50. The fact that we worked together and that I
was aware of his weaknesses but took him as a partner
anyway would justify a 50-50 split.

My partner might feel better. He might think of himself
as my equal then.

Simply because I detest quibbling over money, and because
I always want to feel that I have given a little more
than my share. Not because I am generous surely, but I
would hate to have anyone think that I took more than I
deserve.

The nature of gpy cooperative enterpiece is this way; if.
you agreed to participate jointly then go ahead 8
participate. If you went to participate 8 you can't go
it alone then split even!

Because 33 or $4 is not worth causing a fight. However,
if my partner suggested that I get more than 50% of

the money I would go along with whatever amount he
suggested.

Regardless of who excelled or who performed poorly and
who answers were right 8 whose were wrong, the effort
was a team effort and the profits should be split
evenly.

It was a joint effort, and even though the answers my
partner submitted were not correct, there is no reason
to believe he didn't work just as hard. Also, my
answers were far from being perfect.

we worked as a team, knowing that each of us wasn't good
at this type of test but still striving together to

come up with the best answers possible. Sharing the
work and answer decisions equally we must also share the
profits, or lack of them, equally.

Its so little as to be insignificant and since neither
knew the correct answers why bicker over a buck or

two - anyway before hand I would have decided how the
profits were to be split.

Since it was a team event with no significant special-
ization on the part of either member which might
require greater knowledge or training of either member,
I believe the profit should be devided equally.

FORM

69

REASON

Teamwork depends on each member of the team contributing
what he can, not necessarily equally, of each gives his
best, they have contributed equally. Therefore divide
the awards equally.

Because, under the usual frame of mind, in entering a
contest of this type, is one of a mutual profit for each
member of the team involved, either a loss or a profit.
Although nothing was probably agreed upon before the
contest, this is the accepted "american way.”

It was a team effort. Assuming that the decision as to
who could submit the answers was arbitrary there should
be no differentiation in reward. The two were acting
as one 8 thus the profits should be awarded evenly.

In order to eliminate hostility between myself and my
partner, I think the profits should be divided evenly.
Also both were equally involved in decisions, etc.

Because it was a joint venture and he should not be
penalized for my mistakes nor me for his. Since neither
one of us were very good at it both should gain the

same reward.

Despite fact that the partner disagreed, any rewards
should be divided equally, since the task was a group
effort 8 each of you performs poorly.

Before entering myself in this situation I would have
created an understanding with my partner that we would
split the money regardless of how our own individual
responses would have been (whether correct or not).

we worked as a team and would be rewarded as a team.
Only if he suggested me taking more (if my responses
would have been correct) would I accept it.

The profits have to be split in this way as the exper-
iment was a partnership. Even if the answers
submitted were not often those I would have chosen
myself, it is not my position to protest them as I

was acting merely as an advisor. It was agreed that
he would submit the final answers, therefore, I must
abide by his decisions and split the profits thus
acquired.

The amount of money was not large and rather than put
up a big fuse and appear to be a poor sport over such
a small thing I would divide the money equally A
after all it was a team effort. I would try if
possible not to team up with this person in this sort

FORM

70

REASON
of thing again.

I would split the money this way as to not hurt the
feelings of my partner. And furthermore because this
is what seems socially correct. I would in no way

be thought of by this partner as unfair nor could he
talk about me to others as being unfair.

when one assumes this type of responsibility he must
also assume the variety of consequences and
circumstances which may imply themselves in it. It
becomes a calculated risk subjected to the kind of
decision common in everyday life. As long as the
situation is hypothetical want reality of application
do you expect to find? why $h-SB? what implication
may this notion have had the amount been increased to
say $16-$20?

Since my partner and I had apparently agreed to
undertake this task as a team, regardless of the outcome,
the cast profits from this endeavor should be split
equally. Although my partner may have neglected my
advice on several questions, in order to work as a team,
and abide by the rules of the game, agreed on beforehand,
his responses stand as our responses.

1) First of all, I would like to say that by natural
law - the two of us had entered into an
unwritten social contract ---a Joint effort - for
better or worse. He was speaking figuratively for
myself also whether I cared for his answer or not.

APPENDIX C
Following is an actual listing of the responses given by those

individuals who would not split the profits of the exchange in a
SO-SO ratio. These responses, since they are relatively few in
number, are transferred verbatim from the questionnaire. The
quotes are listed by FORM designation and also by the

percentages of the split. Under the "Reason" heading are the
comments of the several respondents to the question "Briefly,

why would you split the profits this way?"

FORM SPLIT REASON
Self - Other
A 60 AO Because basically I'm an unfair person.
A 100 I need it worse than he does.
A 75 25 If I submitted my answers to the

questions upon which we disagreed and
subsequently found, as the figure shows,
that my answers were most often correct,
I would take the greater share of both
the credit and the money and proceed to
get myself another partner.

A 65 35 Being the person who is responsible for
the final decision I feel that I should
get the larger share of the profits.
Mainly, because it is on my final
decision that the answers are submitted
and not my partners.

A SO AO we nearly always disagreed. Yet, we
were usually right. we don't know who
was right - but I made the final
decision. Thus, I should get a little
more of the money.

A 55 45 I feel since I made the final decision
I should receive slightly more than my
partner since he has only acted in an
advisory position.

A SO #0 I feel it would only be fair, if I knew
none of the answers and he advised me
the correct ones, I think it would only
be fair that he received more money
than I would. If I would have followed

71

FDRM SPLIT

Self - Other

B #0
B 25
B 30
B 30
B #0
l
B 333
B 25

60

75

7D

7D

60

66

MIN

75

72

REASON

his advice and the answers would have
been wrong, we as a team would have even
less money to split between us. Even
though it is a partenship people should
get the amount of 3 in % to the amount
of work they put into it.

Mainly because of the responsibility of
the other person to submit the answers.
The fact that we both excel in this type
of test should balance the fact that he
was right most of the time. Even if it
had been reversed - with me coming up
with the right answers the fact that it
is his responsibility gives him an edge
in the split.

My partner was usually correct while I
was usually wrong. It was he who gave
the final answer and was usually correct,
probably about 3/h of the time.

I operate under the premise that there
should generally be some agreement
between contribution and reward though
the 70-30 decision is arbitrary, it is
more satisfying than a SO-SO split.

Because you both contributed about
equally but he did a majority.

The fact that we did not agree and that
my decisions were for the most part
wrong. I would feel that I was not
entitled to more, but by virtue of my
participation and, I assume, some of

my answers were correct entitle me to
something.

His knowledge was superior in most cases.
But, I still had to be there or else
neither of us could have won any money.
So, I receive payment for time invested
and he for time and knowledge. Had
there been time, I could have made an
agreement prior to the quiz to split

the cash SO-SO.

If he was responsible for the answer
submitted, that in itself would justify
his getting a little more. But due to
the fact that the two usually (very
often) correct, and because he was
responsible for the answers, therefore

FORM

SPLIT

Self - Other

40

75

66

6O

75

75

75

20

U
UT...

60

25

33

AU

25

25

25

BO

66

ulm

73

REASON

he probably more often submitted his
answers which were often right, he
therefore deserves an even larger
percentage of the money.

Even though we were a team - I wouldn't
feel capable of accepting one half of
the credit for right answers I hardly
ever contributed to arriving at. The
final decision was his - not mine - so
he actually should receive more credit
for having the harder task of choosing
between the facts.

Because I feel that my partner added
little to the final answer that I
submitted. He should be compensated
somewhat because he did at least offer
some advice.

I am the one responsible and like in
business where the responsibility one
takes on dictates the salary, I think
this would be the case. It would
depend upon his answers and reinforce-
ment of the right answers (and he was
mostly wrong).

while I may "deserve" a higher
percentage, we did act as a team, it
did take up my partner's time and
effort.

Because if I were the one who always
answers wrong, I would feel it unfair
for me to k the profit.

Because I am aware that my partner is
incompetent in the area.

Because his answers were very often
wrong and if he had answered, he would
have probably earned less than he won
with this particular percentage.

It is obvious that he did most of the
work and that I was nearly always
wrong, so I feel the percentage

should reflect this situation. Giving
myself the benefit of the doubt,
however, I would want 1/5 of the
earnings.

He knew the answers and I didn't
therefore he should get more money.

FORM

Self - Other

#0

25

AU

25

25

25

AU

35

SPLIT

6O

75

BO

75

75

75

60

65

7A

REASON

However, I was his partner and should
receive some of the money that was won.

He has done most of the work and carried
the biggest share of the load.

If I gave absolutly no correct answers
to him and I knew nothing of what was
going on I wouldn't feel right taking
half the money.

working as a team should lead to a

SO-SO split. The fact that we won any
money at all was because of my

partner so he should be justly rewarded.
The SO-AO split is a combination of

the above 2 reasons.

I would give him the benefit of his
position in excelling in this task, and
feel for my part that I have gained
from this experience.

Because I am dumb and he is smart; but
I need a little money to pay my phone
bill.

Because he had the ability and
knowledge to determine the correct
answers. Also, he was most responsible
for turning in the answers. I only
acted as an advisor. Althou I probably
put in the same amount of time and
energy, he made better use of his.
Therefore, he should be justly
rewarded. (Besides - the object of the
test was to work as a team, not make
money.

I was on the team, and he did make 3X
so the fact that I was there should
dictate a certain per cant. I was not
as skilled as he; therefore, he should
get more, but the value of discussion
on my part and his part contributed to
team success. I was ad odds, but his
determination and skill netted us our
profit. I played a part in that we
differed might have stimulated partner
to answer as he did and perhaps
answers I gave.

It was his knowledge that won the money
for the team. However, my discussion
of the questions was of some value at

FORM SPLIT

Self - Other

1
D 333
D 10
O AD

1
D 333
0 3O
0 IO

66-

BO

60

66

umn

7O

90

75

REASON

arriving at the correct answers, but I
feel that since it was mostly his effort
he should be rewarded accordingly.

Realizing that my partner, in choosing
the correct answers, actually won the
money, I would feel obliged to see that
he received the larger share of the
money. Thus, I would take 1/3 of the
amount won to account for the advice I
had given and for the few correct
answers I have contrary to his
incorrect responses. He would receive
2/3 of the money due to his greater
proportion of correct responses.

His investment as far as his knowledge
is greater by far, but the subject's
time was spent at the task so he
deserves some compensation. Reward
should be equal to investment.

His answers were the correct ones,
therefore, he should get somewhat more
of the profits; but - the proposal

was that we work on a team basis so
the difference in profits Ihould not
be very great no matter what the
outcome.

I feel that I was, though not of real
contribution to the team, there i5
case we needed me. Had I been
instrumental in the victory, I would
have been inclined for more of a SO-SO
proposition.

You should get some for just being
picked to be on the team and also,
because you obviously didn't argue with
your partner so violently that you
forced him to give your answer. He
should get most of the money because he
knew the right answers and had courage
to stick by them.

10% for the "I" character for

garticipating in this testing situation.
0% for the he" character for it was

only thru him that any winnings were
earned. It seems only fair to give

him the greater of the share of the

profits.

FORM SPLIT

Self - Other

0 O 100

E 100 O

E SO #0

E 70 BO

E O 100

E #0 60

F SO #0

F 25 75

76

REASON

It was his effort which won the money.
However it seems incomprehensible that
some arrangement weren't made before the
contest as to the division of the money.
Had it been firmly established each of
us was to receive half, I might
consider a SO-SO split. Even then I
think I might offer my half to him.
However if the amount were more
important I would probably demand an
SO-SO split.

Because, being as smart as he is, he
wouldn't need these few dollars; he
would probably be able to get a good job.

I would want a slightly greater share
because having been forced to be the
team spokesman I must have had more
worries about whose answer to give, in
the face of our both recognizing my
inferior performance.

1. Assumption of responsibility should
be rewarded
2. Merit.

Because if I would have answered the
questions, the prize would have been
very insignificant, so as long as he
was more accurate he should get the money.

I am tempted to split the profits SO-SO
because the final responsibility for the
choice of the answer is mine. However

I believe I would split it as indicated,
out of deference for the partners
greater ability.

Since I am supposedly smarter than he,
the correct answers were probably mine.
Evidently, he can not do well on a
multiple choice test. However, I think
I deserve a larger percentage of the
profits, since it was my thinking that
got the correct answers.

Mainly because it is he that makes the
final decision and the responsibility

of the answer falls on his shoulders.

I can only advise, thus not accepting

the responsibility of money lost or
gained. However I do feel my suggestions
would be influential to my partner, and

FORM SPLIT

Self - Other

F #0
F 75
G O
G 60
G 60
G 55
2
G 663
G 75
H #0

6O

25

100

AU

“O

U
umL

25

60

77

REASON

thus should be alloted about 25%.

Because he was responsible for the correct
answers - lst by being the one to make

the response and by being the one who was
most often correct.

Before entering such a situation, I

would stipulate the above terms of cash
award distribution. It is given that

my general knowledge is superior -
therefore my partner would either conform
to my demands or enter the contest with
another partner.

Because if I had followed his advise, the
team would have won more money - and his
share - even split SO-SO would have been
more than Sh!

Because I feel that I was in the more
responsible situation, I had to make the
decision while the other person simply
advised me. Therefore I should get a
larger share of the profit.

I would split the profits in this way
for two basic reasons; firstly, because
in the final analysis I was responsible
for the answer submitted any "blame"

or honor would fall on me. Secondly,
because of the small amount of money
involved there is no reason why my
partner should be dissatisfied with AO%.

Since I have to submit the correct
answer, I should be entitled to a little
more than half of the money.

Because the final decision was up to me
and I therefore shouldered the
responsibility for the answers.

Although my partner could shift the
blame to me, I had to assume final
responsibility therefore the bulk of the
reward should be mine.

Instead of splitting it in half, since
I have the responsibility I should get
more.

Since the process involved his thoughts
and used me as a reference point for
evaluating these thoughts, I would make

FORM

SPLIT

Self - Other

A0

75

AU

AD

60

60

25

60

BO

#0

78

REASON

the difference small. But also - if a
money value can be assigned or any
dividend social or otherwise given -

the extra responsibility he had warrants
a larger % of the reward.

Since my partner had the final decision
to make and since this would be

difficult in light of the contradictory
answers, he had more responsibility in
the answer given so should get more of
the money. P

The team as a whole only had A to B of
the 20 questions correct and the other
team member submitted several
incorrect answers. I would therefore
have answered most of the correct
questions and should receive a larger
percentage of the reward.

 

He has done more work than I, he has
done all the talking. I just coached
him, so I would take less money than
he.

He is the person responsible for the
answer, so he had made the final
choice and thus should get more than I.

Upon analysis of the raw score, if I
felt that we had lost money because
he hadn't considered my advice he
should be penalized.

APPENDIX D
This is a listing of the responses given by those individuals
who I believe did not participate in sincerity. These responses
were given to the question "Briefly, why would you split the profits

this way?“ Once again, they are direct quotes.

5.0514. .832. my
Self-Other
A SO #0 Because basically I'm an unfair person. “
A 100 I need it worse than he does.
E lDO Because, being as smart as he is, he

wouldn't need these few dollars; he
would probably be able to get a good
job.

 

E'- _m'

G SO SO Hypothetically charitable today.

79

APPENDIX E

Included here are responses which cannot be used in the

analysis of the data. These few respondents did not indicate an

actual percentage split of the profits, but their data is a part

of the research, and must be acknowledge in this report as part

of the results.

FORM SPLIT
B
0 Variable
F

REASON

I would say that for every answer that he
thought of that was correct, he would get the
dollar. For every one I said that was
correct, I would get the dollar and for the
answers we both agreed on, we each would get
50¢.

Prior to answering the questions the % should
be decided upon. Since it is already known
that I do poorly there will be some sort of
compromize. This must be a priori to
answering any questions. If this wasn't done
before I would refuse to be put in a decision
making position.

I think it should be decided beforehand, by
both, how the profits should be divided;
whatever the outcome of the task and its
score, it should be abided by. Decided
before hand, there will be no disagreement.

BO

 

R‘L

APPENDIX F
what I have done here is perform the operations necessary for
arriving at a mean percentage split for respondents who replied
with a percentage split other than SD—SD in FORM C and FORM D.
Again, the respondents in each of these forms are in a situation
of exchange with each other. These calculations are
representative of those necessary for each of the four exchanges,

and all the remaining calculations were performed in a similar

manner.
FDRM O FORM D
Self Other Self Other
60 AU AU 60
75 25 20 BO
66 33 33 1/3 66 2/3
75 25 AO SO
75 25 25 75
75 25 OD 100
A26 173 10 BO
30 7D
33 1/3 66 2/3
25 75
AD 60
10 BO
33 1/3 66 2/3
35 65
AO SO
25 75
25 75
A65 1235

FDRM C Self total plus FORM 0 Other total
Number of respondents to FORM C plus number of respondents to FORM D

+
= A+ percentage in an A_ exchange. Egg-Efl%%2 = lggl = 72.22
6

Bl

 

82

FORM O Other total:plus FORM D Self total
Number of respondents to FORM C plus number of respondents to FORM D

+
= 8' percentage in an A_ exchange. 123 : 3?? = %;g = 27.7A
B

b
I

"’ 72022

(D
II

27.7A

A+ + B- should equal 100. They do not in this, and other cases
because some respondents replied with 66-33 splits, and I

thereby lose one percentage point before I begin my calculations.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Blau, Peter M. The Dynamics 2: Bureaucracy. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1955.

 

Camilleri, Santo F. "Research Plan" Michigan State University:
(mimeographed, unpublished and undated).

Homans, George C. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New
York: Harcourt, Brace and world, Inc., 1961.

Jackson, Elton F. "Status Consistency and Symptoms of Stress"
American Sociological Review, 27(A):(1962), A69-ABO.

Kimberly, James C. "A Theory of Status Equilibration," in Berger,
Zelditch and Anderson (eds), Sociological Theories lg
Progress. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1966.

Also as Technical Report #6, Office of Naval Research,
Contract Nonr 1181 (11), Project NR 179-7AO, (undated).

Kimberly, James C. "An Experimental Test of a Theory of Status
Equilibration," Technical Report #7, Office of Naval
Research, Contract Nonr 1181 (11), Project NRl79-7AO, 1963.

 

Thibaut, John w., and Kelley, Harold H. The Social Psychology
gfi Group . New York: John miley 8 Sons, Inc., 1959.

B3

TA

 

”iii iiiflfii'nfilfl TITLE“ 1TH jfnimmigifliifii“