DOCSLIB.ORG

Collaborative Plans for Complex Group Action

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Collaborative Plans for Complex Group Action Collaborative Plans for Complex Group Action The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Grosz, Barbara J. and Sarit Kraus. 1996. Collaborative Plans for Complex Group Action. Artificial Intelligence 86(2): 269-357. Published Version http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(95)00103-4 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:2562070 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Collab orative Plans for Complex Group Action Barbara J Grosz Division of Applied Sciences Harvard University Cambridge MA USA groszeecsharvardedu Sarit Kraus Department of Mathematics and Computer Science Bar Ilan University Ramat Gan Israel saritcsbiuacil and Institute for Advanced Computer Studies University of Maryland College Park MD Note This article app ears in Articial Intel ligence This pap er is an extension of our pap er in IJCAI Grosz and Kraus We thank Joyce Friedman for many thoughtprovoking questions and Karen Lo chbaum for the same and for helpful comments on many drafts We also thank Michael Bratman David Israel and Martha Pollack for comments on earlier versions and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions and illuminati ng comments This researchwas initiated when the rst author was a Harold Perlman Visiting Professor Hebrew University Jerusalem Partial supp ort for the rst author was provided by U S WEST Advanced Technologies The second author was supp orted in part by NSF GrantNumber IRI and the Israeli Science Ministry grant No Abstract The original formulation of SharedPlans Grosz and Sidner a was develop ed to provide a mo del of collab orative planning in whichitwas not necessary for one agenttohaveintentionsto toward an act of a dierent agent Unlike other contemp oraneous approaches Searle this formulation provided for two agents to co ordinate their activities without intro ducing any notion of irreducible jointintentions However it only treated activities that directly decomp osed into singleagent actions did not address the need for agents to commit to their joint activity and did not adequately deal with agents having only partial knowledge of the way in whichtoperform an action This pap er provides a revised and expanded version of SharedPlans that addresses these shortcomings It also reformulates Pollacks denition of individual plans Pollack to handle cases in which a single agent has only partial knowledge this reformulation meshes with the denition of SharedPlans The new denitions also allow for contracting out certain actions The formalization that results has the features required by Bratmans account of shared co op erative activity Bratman and is more general than alternative accounts Levesque Cohen and Nunes Sonenb erg et al i Contents Intro duction Examples of Collab orative Plans Overview of the Mo del Supp orting Denitions and Notation Recip e Notation Subsidiary Predicates and Functions Basic Mo dal Op erators Attitudes of Intention Typ es of Intending Mo dal Op erators for Attitudes of Intention Axioms for Intention Op erators MetaPredicates for the AbilitytoAct Complex Actions for Planning Individual Plans Full Individual Plans Partial Individual Plans Capabilities to Perform Actions in Individual Plans SharedPlans and Intendingthat Denition of SharedPlan Full SharedPlans Intentionsthat in SharedPlans P artial SharedPlans Capabilities to Perform Actions in SharedPlans An Example SharedPlan for Dinner Implications of the Formalization Comparison with Alternative Approaches Conclusions and Future Work A Abilities and Beliefs A Pro of of Theorem T BFormal Plan Denitions and Additional Intentionthat Axiom ii List of Figures Key comp onents of collab orative plans Recip e tree and the other leaf no des are basiclevel actions The denition of IntTo Axiom schema to avoid conicting intentions Intentions and b eliefs Denition of CBA can bring ab out and CC can contract Denition of CBAG can bring ab out group and CCG can contract group Denition of GTD get to do English description of the FIP full individual plan denition FIP Core case FIP Contractingout case English description of the PIP partial individual plan denition PIP Finding a recip e PIP Core case PIP Contractingout case PIP Unreconciled case Denition of SP SharedPlan English description of the FSP full SharedPlan denition FSP Core case singleagent action FSP Core case multiagent action Contracting in a FSP singleagent subactions Contracting in a FSP multiagent subactions Axioms for intendingthat Helpfulb ehavior axiom for intendingthat English description of the PSP partial SharedPlan denition PSP Finding a recip e PSP Core Case singleagentact PSP Core Case multiagentact PSP Unreconciled case Beliefs and capabilities to p erform actions in FIP and the denition of BCBA b elieve can bring ab out and related theorem Beliefs and capabilities to p erform actions in PIP and the denition of WBCBA weakly b elieve can bring ab out Beliefs and capabilities to p erform actions in FSP and the denition of MBCBAG mutuallyb elievedcanbri ngab outgroup Beliefs and capabilities to p erform actions in PSP and the denition of WMBCBAG weakly mutually b elieve can bring ab out group Denition of Full Individual Plan Denition of Partial Individual Plan Denition of Full SharedPlan FSPC Contracting in FSP The p erformance of the contracting action in the contracting cases of FSP MP Memb er of the group p erforms the contracting action SGPsubgroup p erforms the contracting action Denition of Partial SharedPlan iii PSP Contractingout case singleagent PSP Contractingout case multiagent Another helpfulb ehavior axiom for intendingthat iv Intro duction Co op erative problem solving by teams comp osed of p eople and computers requires collab oration and communication Collab oration is a sp ecial typ e of co ordinated activity one in which the par ticipants work jointly with each other together p erforming a task or carrying out the activities needed to satisfy a shared goal Because collab orative action comprises actions by dierent agents collab orative planning and activityinvolvetheintentions of multiple agents As a result collab orative plans cannot b e recast simply in terms of the plans of individual agents but require an integrated treatment of the b eliefs and intentions of the dierentagents involved Furthermore the collab orative planning pro cess is a renement pro cess a partial plan description is mo died over the course of planning by the multiple agents involved in the collab oration Thus capabilities for collab oration cannot b e patched on but must b e designed in from the start Searle Grosz and Sidner a In this pap er wepresent a formal mo del of collab orative plans that deals more completely with collab oration than previous existing theories of actions plans and the plan recognition pro cess This mo del grew out of an attempt to provide an adequate treatment of the collab orative b ehavior exhibited in dialogues Grosz and Sidner The collab orative prop erty of dialogue aects communication in all mo dalities and thus is a factor that must b e reckoned with in developing more advanced systems for humancomputer communication regardless of the mo dality of commu nication Communication and collab oration also playseveral imp ortant roles in multiagent action First communication provides a means for working together to achieve shared ob jectiv es Bond and Gasser Davis and Smith Durfee Conry et al Werner inter alia most multiagent systems in which the agents need to co ordinate their activities incorp orate some mechanism for agents to communicate Second manymultiagent situations require that agents have an ability to plan and act collab oratively the avoidance of conicting actions is a necessary part of such capabilities but is not sucient in itself Kraus and Wilkenfeld Zlotkin and Rosenschein Gasser Kraus and Lehmann inter alia For example in some cases agents must decide collectively on the approach they will take to acting ie the constituent actions they will p erform and negotiate ab out resp onsibilities for p erforming the subsidiary ac tions entailed The mo del presented here is intended to provide the basis for constructing computer agents that are fully collab orativeaswell as to provide a framework for mo delling the intentional comp onent of dialogue Grosz and Sidner Lo chbaum The original formulation of the SharedPlan mo del of collab orative planning Grosz and Sidner a extended Pollacks mental state mo del of plans Pollack c Pollack to the situa tion in whichtwo agents together form a plan to p erform
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Modeling Memes: a Memetic View of Affordance Learning
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations Spring 2011 Modeling Memes: A Memetic View of Affordance Learning Benjamin D. Nye University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Artificial Intelligence and Robotics Commons, Cognition and Perception Commons, Other Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, Other Operations Research, Systems Engineering and Industrial Engineering Commons, Social Psychology Commons, and the Statistical Models Commons Recommended Citation Nye, Benjamin D., "Modeling Memes: A Memetic View of Affordance Learning" (2011). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 336. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/336 With all thanks to my esteemed committee, Dr. Silverman, Dr. Smith, Dr. Carley, and Dr. Bordogna. Also, great thanks to the University of Pennsylvania for all the opportunities to perform research at such a revered institution. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/336 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Modeling Memes: A Memetic View of Affordance Learning Abstract This research employed systems social science inquiry to build a synthesis model that would be useful for modeling meme evolution. First, a formal definition of memes was proposed that balanced both ontological adequacy and empirical observability. Based on this definition, a systems model for meme evolution was synthesized from Shannon Information Theory and elements of Bandura's Social Cognitive Learning Theory. Research in perception, social psychology, learning, and communication were incorporated to explain the cognitive and environmental processes guiding meme evolution. By extending the PMFServ cognitive architecture, socio-cognitive agents were created who could simulate social learning of Gibson affordances.
    [Show full text]
  • Religion, Conflict, and Peacebuilding
    SEPTEMBER 2009 Conflict is an inherent and legitimate part of social and political life, but in many places conflict turns violent, inflicting grave costs in terms of lost lives, degraded governance, and destroyed livelihoods. The costs and consequences of conflict, crisis, and state failure have become unacceptably high. Violent conflict dramatically disrupts traditional development and it can spill over FROM THE DIRECTOR borders and reduce growth and prosperity across entire regions. Religion is often viewed as a motive for conflict and has emerged as a key compo- nent in many current and past conflicts. However, religion does not always drive violence; it is also an integral factor in the peacebuilding and reconciliation process. Development assistance and programming does not always consider this link- age, nor does it fully address the complexity of the relationship between religion and conflict. As a main mobilizing force in many societies, proper engagement of religion and its leaders is crucial. This Toolkit is intended to help USAID staff and their implementing partners un- derstand the opportunities and challenges inherent to development programming in conflicts where religion is a key component. Like other guides in this series, this Toolkit discusses key issues that need to be considered when development as- sistance is provided in religious contexts and identifies lessons that been emerged from USAID’s experience implementing such programs. However compared to other types of programming, USAID experience engaging religion and religious actors to prevent conflict or build peace is modest. Thus, recognizing that there is still significantly more to be learned on this critical topic, this toolkit contains summaries of four actual USAID programs that have successfully engaged religious actors.
    [Show full text]
  • Religion, Nationalism and Demography: False Consciousness, Real Consequences1
    Religion, Nationalism and Demography: False Consciousness, Real Consequences1 Jon Anson Department of Social Work Ben Gurion University of the Negev 84105 Beer Sheva, Israel 1Previous versions of this paper have been presented at the Sociology of Religion Study Group of the British Sociological Association seminar on Demography and Religion, Lancaster, 14 April, 2005; BSPS Annual Meeting, Southampton, 2006, and the ASEN conference on Religion and Demography, LSE, 2006. My thanks to Ofra Anson, to David Voas, and to the participants at all these meetings, as well as many others, unknown and unnamed, for their comments and suggestions. Naturally, responsibility for all shortcomings lies with myself alone. Religion, Nationalism and Demography: False Consciousness, Real Consequences Abstract We may treat religion as an immanent belief system which directly guides human action, or as a social phenomenon in which the actual content of the belief is contingent. The first course leads into a series of contradictions: neither the beliefs nor their consequences are consistent, nor eternal over time. As social phenomena, however, religions differ from nationalisms only in the referent of their expressed belief: an otherworldly sacred being or a this-worldly sacred community, and the two are often conflated. If in the past men killed and died for their gods, today they do so for their country. Demographic events, childbirth and death, may similarly be treated as individual events or as social phenomena subject to group, and not just individual, control. In this paper we consider the relations between these two sets of social phenomena, religion and nationalism on one hand, demographic processes on the other, and the contradictions inherent in ignoring the social element in the explanation of their interrelationship.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1. Introduction to a Republic, If You Can Keep It Last Updated: 8-14-2015 Copyright 2008-15
    Chapter 1. Introduction to A Republic, If You Can Keep It Last Updated: 8-14-2015 Copyright 2008-15 OUTLINE I. Purposes of This E-Text II. Some Basic Terms and Ideas A. Republics and Democracies–The Question of Who Should Govern B. Politics and Power–Personal and Public C. Government D. Ideology and Party–Differences and Similarities E. Federalism–What Level of Government Should Have Power III. Plan of the Text–Chapter Organization IV. Policy A. Policy and the text B. Health Care Policy V. Final Introductory Comments TEXT I. Purposes of This E-Text Every text has a “hook” to entice students to read it, to create interest, and to improve understanding. This text is no different, except perhaps that it has several hooks. First is the “pocketbook” hook. You’re not going to read a text if you can’t afford to buy it. Affordability is an ever greater problem for college students. This e-book is very affordable—it’s free! If you just read it online, it costs you nothing. If you print it, the cost is printing, but who does that anymore with smartphones! People often say that “you get what you pay for.” This time I hope you get a lot more than what you paid! You do not need $ for this text! (public domain) Second, the text is conversational in style. I tried to avoid complicated wording and terms. I use as little political science jargon as possible. Sentences will usually be short and to the point. Paragraphs will be short. So I will use the first person, saying “I” a lot, and I will address “you” a lot as well.
    [Show full text]
  • Enabling Supportive Communications in Decentralized Multi-Agent Teams
    Enabling Supportive Communications in Decentralized Multi-Agent Teams by Keren Gu B.S., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2014 Submitted to the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Engineering in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY June 2015 c Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2015. All rights reserved. Author.............................................................. Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science May 22, 2015 Certified by. Julie A. Shah Assistant Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics Thesis Supervisor Accepted by . Albert R. Meyer Chair, Masters of Engineering Thesis Committee Enabling Supportive Communications in Decentralized Multi-Agent Teams by Keren Gu Submitted to the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science on May 22, 2015, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Engineering in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Abstract Supportive communication is an effective collaboration behavior identified in human teams in which team members share information proactively to improve overall team performance. Prior work formulated this objective as the Single-Agent in a Team Decision Problem (SAT-DP) where agents decide whether or not to communicate an unexpected observation during execution time. We extend the SAT-DP definition to include sequential observations, highlighting the need for belief updates of attributed mental models of agents. These updates must be performed effectively and efficiently to minimize model divergence and maximize the utility of future communications. In this paper, we present a decision-theoretic solution to the sequential SAT-DP. In our solution, we propose the use of Bayesian plan recognition as one of the methods for reducing divergence in mental models.
    [Show full text]
  • Masses, Crowds, Communities, Movements: Collective Action in the Internet Age
    Social Movement Studies Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest ISSN: 1474-2837 (Print) 1474-2829 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csms20 Masses, Crowds, Communities, Movements: Collective Action in the Internet Age Ulrich Dolata & Jan-Felix Schrape To cite this article: Ulrich Dolata & Jan-Felix Schrape (2016) Masses, Crowds, Communities, Movements: Collective Action in the Internet Age, Social Movement Studies, 15:1, 1-18, DOI: 10.1080/14742837.2015.1055722 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2015.1055722 Published online: 09 Jul 2015. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 999 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 2 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=csms20 Download by: [University of Liverpool] Date: 12 October 2016, At: 07:37 Social Movement Studies, 2016 Vol. 15, No. 1, 1–18, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2015.1055722 Masses, Crowds, Communities, Movements: Collective Action in the Internet Age ULRICH DOLATA & JAN-FELIX SCHRAPE Department for Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies, Institute for Social Sciences, University of Stuttgart, Seidenstr. 36, D-70174 Stuttgart, Germany ABSTRACT This article investigates two questions: One, how might the very differently structured social collectives on the Internet – masses, crowds, communities and movements – be classified and distinguished? And two, what influence do the technological infrastructures in which they operate have on their formation, structure, and activities? For this, we differentiate between two main types of social collectives: non-organized collectives, which exhibit loosely coupled collective behavior, and collective actors with a separate identity and strategic capability.
    [Show full text]
  • Intra-Group Interaction and the Development of Norms Which Promote Inter-Group Hostility
    European Journal of Social Psychology Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 39, 130–144 (2009) Published online 1 October 2007 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.464 Intra-group interaction and the development of norms which promote inter-group hostility LAURA G. E. SMITH1* AND TOM POSTMES1,2 1School of Psychology, Washington Singer Laboratories, University of Exeter, UK 2University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands Abstract Research suggests there is more inter-group discrimination when rewards rather than punishments are distributed between groups (the positive-negative asymmetry effect). This study investigated whether intra-group interaction and the obstruction of in-group advancement moderate this finding. Participants were twice asked to divide monetary resources—individually (pre-consensus) and in interactive groups (consensus). Results confirmed that there was more discrimination when rewards were allocated. Although this replicates the PNAE overall, there were two moderators. First, there was no asymmetry when the out-group obstructed in-group advancement: obstruction was sufficient to legitimise punishment. Second, after group interaction the PNAE reversed so that there was more discrimination when punishments were administered. The severity of discrimination was contingent upon group norms that endorsed inter-group hostility. It is argued that norms changed as a function of group interaction, and so did patterns of discrimination. The results suggest that the intra- and inter-group context combined to cause in-group favouritism to slide towards inter-group hostility. Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Social psychological research has demonstrated a robust tendency for humans to favour the in-group over out-group(s) (Allport, 1954; Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971).
    [Show full text]
  • A Theory of Social Movements from Jean-Paul Sartre
    becalm 8ES0!!B ED 177 653 CS 502 675 AUTHOR Warnick, Barbara TITLE Rhetoric in Group Action: A Theory of Social Movements from Jean-Paul Sartre. PUB DATE Nov 79 NOTE 23p.: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the speech Communication Association (65th, San Antonio, TX, November. 10-13, 1979) EDR3 TRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Discourse Analysis; *Group Structure; Interaction Process Analysis: *Organizations (Groups); *Rhetoric; Rhetorical Criticism: *Social Action IDENTIFIERS *Sartre (Jean Paul) ABSTRACT The implications of a social movement theory advanced by ,Jean-Paul Sartre in his "Critique of Dialectical reason" is examined in this paper. The paper notes that unlike sociologists and rhetoricians who have stressed the psychology of movement adherents,- the reasons for movement 'formation; or the movement's interaction with power agents, Sartre bases his analysis on the forms of. organization within the group. The paper then reviews the five forms of groups discussed by Sartre---the series the fused group, the pledged group, the organization, and the institution—and describes the functions of rhetoric particular to each form. (Author/FL) RHETORIC IN GROUP ACTION: A THEORY OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS FROM JEAN-PAUL SARTRE Barbara Warnick Assistant Professor of Speech Tulane University RHETORIC IN GROUP ACTION: A THEORY OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS FROM JEAN-PAUL SARTRE Abstract This study examines' the implications of a social movement theory advanced by Jean-Paul Sartre in his Critique of Dialectical Reason. Unlike sociologists and rhetoricians who have stressed the psychology of movement adherents, the reasons for movement- formation, or the movement's interaction with power agents, Sartre bases his analysis on the forms of organization within• the group.
    [Show full text]
  • Cognition and Emotion in Extreme Political Action: Individual Differences and Dynamic Interactions
    Cognition and Emotion in Extreme Political Action: Individual Differences and Dynamic Interactions Leor Zmigrod1,2,3 & Amit Goldenberg4 Affiliations: 1Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK 2Behavioural and Clinical Neuroscience Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK 3Churchill College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK 4Harvard Business School, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA Contact: Dr Leor Zmigrod, [email protected], +44 7522193934. Paper accepted and in press at Current Directions in Psychological Science. Can be tempo- rarily cited as: Zmigrod, L., & Goldenberg, A. (2020). Cognition and Emotion in Extreme Political Action: Individual Differences and Dynamic Interactions. Current Directions in Psychological Sci- ence. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/w3hj6 1 Abstract Who is most likely to join and engage in extreme political action? While traditional theories have focused on situational factors or group identity attributes, an emerging science illustrates that tendencies for extreme political action may also be rooted in individuals’ idiosyncratic cognitive and affective dispositions. This paper synthesizes cutting-edge evidence demonstrating that an individual’s cognitive and affective architecture shape their willingness to support ideological violence. From a cognitive perspective, traits such as cognitive rigidity, slower perceptual strategies, and poorer executive functions are linked to heightened endorsement for ideological violence. From an emotional standpoint, characteristics associated with emotional reactivity and impaired emotional regulation, such as sensation-seeking and impulsivity, can facilitate readiness for extreme political action. The review hones in on the roles of cognitive rigidity and sensation-seeking as traits heightening proclivities for extreme pro-group behavior, and recommends that future research should aim to assess cognition-emotion interactions to reveal different sub-profiles of political actors.
    [Show full text]
  • Linking Group Theory to Social Science Game Theory: Interaction Grammars, Group Subcultures and Games for Comparative Analysis
    social sciences $€ £ ¥ Article Linking Group Theory to Social Science Game Theory: Interaction Grammars, Group Subcultures and Games for Comparative Analysis Tom R. Burns 1,2,*, Ewa Roszkowska 3, Ugo Corte 1 and Nora Machado Des Johansson 2 1 Department of Sociology, University of Uppsala, Uppsala 75126, Sweden; [email protected] 2 Lisbon University Institute (ISCTE), Lisbon 1649-026, Portugal; [email protected] 3 Faculty of Managements and Economics, University of Bialystok, Bialystok 15-062, Poland; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +46-18-471-5178 Received: 10 April 2017; Accepted: 29 August 2017; Published: 7 September 2017 Abstract: This article draws on earlier work in social system theorizing and analysis—in particular, the theory of social rule systems. On the basis of this foundational work, its aim is to systematically link theories of social groups and organizations, on the one hand, and social science game and interaction theory, on the other hand. Rule system theory has contributed to significant features of group theory and social science game theory. It is a cultural-institutional approach to conceptualizing group systems and games. We explore how groups and their particular games can be effectively described, analyzed, and compared—and their similarities and differences identified on a systematic basis. For illustrative purposes, we present a selection of several ideal types of groups: a military unit, a terrorist group, a recreational or social group, a research group, and a business entity, each of whom has a distinct rule configuration making for particular “rules of the game” and game patterns of interaction and outcome.
    [Show full text]
  • Status Hierarchies and the Organization of Collective Action
    STX30310.1177/07352751124 45791257912Sociological TheorySimpson et al. 2012 Sociological Theory 30(3) 149 –166 Status Hierarchies and the © American Sociological Association 2012 DOI: 10.1177/0735275112457912 Organization of Collective http://stx.sagepub.com Action Brent Simpson1, Robb Willer2, and Cecilia L. Ridgeway3 Abstract Most work on collective action assumes that group members are undifferentiated by status, or standing, in the group. Yet such undifferentiated groups are rare, if they exist at all. Here we extend an existing sociological research program to address how extant status hierarchies help organize collective actions by coordinating how much and when group members should contribute to group efforts. We outline three theoretically derived predictions of how status hierarchies organize patterns of behavior to produce larger public goods. We review existing evidence relevant to two of the three hypotheses and present results from a preliminary experimental test of the third. Findings are consistent with the model. The tendency of these dynamics to lead status-differentiated groups to produce larger public goods may help explain the ubiquity of hierarchy in groups, despite the often negative effects of status inequalities for many group members. Keywords status, collective action, coordination, hierarchy, public goods Past models of collective action typically have addressed how collective actions emerge among homoge- neous groups of undifferentiated actors (for important exceptions, see Clark, Clark, and Polborn 2006; Granovetter 1978; Marwell and Oliver 1993; Oliver, Marwell, and Texeira 1985). From such an approach, collective efforts entail various social dilemmas, including the challenges of motivating individuals to make costly contributions and the coordination of group members’ efforts in ways that are complementary and productive.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Sociology and Social Movements
    ANRV381-SO35-19 ARI 2 June 2009 7:44 Political Sociology and Social Movements Andrew G. Walder Department of Sociology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305-2047, email: [email protected] Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2009. 35:393–412 Key Words First published online as a Review in Advance on contentious politics, mobilization, collective action April 6, 2009 The Annual Review of Sociology is online at Abstract soc.annualreviews.org Until the 1970s, the study of social movements was firmly within a di- This article’s doi: verse sociological tradition that explored the relationship between social 10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-120035 structure and political behavior, and was preoccupied with explaining Copyright c 2009 by Annual Reviews. variation in the political orientation of movements: their ideologies, All rights reserved aims, motivations, or propensities for violence. Subsequently, a break- 0360-0572/09/0811-0393$20.00 away tradition redefined the central problem, radically narrowing the scope of interest to the process of mobilization—how social groups, whoever they are and whatever their aims, marshal resources, recruit adherents, and navigate political environments in order to grow and Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2009.35:393-412. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org succeed. Critics would later insist that the construction of meaning, the by Stanford University - Main Campus Green Library on 07/27/09. For personal use only. formation of collective identities, and the stimulation and amplification of emotions play vital and neglected roles in mobilization, but these alternatives did not challenge the narrowed construction of the prob- lem itself. The resulting subfield has largely abandoned the quest to explain variation in the political orientation of movements.
    [Show full text]