IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ratsoc/v12y2000i2p185-225.html

Subjective Rationality Of Initiators And Of Threshold-Theoretical Behavior Of Followers In Collective Action

Author

Listed:
  • Kazuo Yamaguchi

Abstract

This article brings a rational-choice perspective to bear on (1) some utility characteristics of people who initiate collective action and (2) reasons why such initiators' actions induce followers who appear to act according to the threshold theory described by Granovetter. This article also identifies certain personality/psychological factors and their interactions with individual costs/benefits of alternative choices that determine (1) the relative utility of taking Action versus Non-action and (2) individual thresholds of choosing Action. Among personality/psychological factors, this article examines the effect of uncertainty preference, susceptibility to rumor or prophecy, and personal efficacy. Certain parametric non-expected utility models and a binary choice model are used to accommodate those factors into a rational-choice framework. Three examples, including two situations of collective action, are discussed. One is a case of Mertonian self-fulfilling prophecy where the initially groundless rumor of a bank's insolvency causes bankruptcy. The second is a case of participation in a risky social/political movement. As a third example, the famous Allais paradox is revisited to show how the parametric non-expected utility models employed provide a rational explanation for this empirically observed paradox.

Suggested Citation

  • Kazuo Yamaguchi, 2000. "Subjective Rationality Of Initiators And Of Threshold-Theoretical Behavior Of Followers In Collective Action," Rationality and Society, , vol. 12(2), pages 185-225, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ratsoc:v:12:y:2000:i:2:p:185-225
    DOI: 10.1177/104346300012002003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/104346300012002003
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/104346300012002003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yaari, Menahem E, 1987. "The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 95-115, January.
    2. Gordon Tullock, 1971. "The paradox of revolution," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 89-99, September.
    3. Hong, Chew Soo & Karni, Edi & Safra, Zvi, 1987. "Risk aversion in the theory of expected utility with rank dependent probabilities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 370-381, August.
    4. Raymond Boudon, 1989. "Subjective Rationality and the Explanation of Social Behavior," Rationality and Society, , vol. 1(2), pages 173-196, October.
    5. Jack A. Goldstone, 1994. "Is Revolution Individually Rational?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 6(1), pages 139-166, January.
    6. Debra Friedman & Michael Hechter & Satoshi Kanazawa, 1994. "A theory of the value of children," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 31(3), pages 375-401, August.
    7. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    8. Kazuo Yamaguchi, 1998. "Rational-Choice Theories Of Anticipatory Socialization And Anticipatory Non-Socialization," Rationality and Society, , vol. 10(2), pages 163-199, May.
    9. Machina, Mark J, 1982. ""Expected Utility" Analysis without the Independence Axiom," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(2), pages 277-323, March.
    10. Boudon, Raymond, 1989. "Subjective Rationality and the Explanation of Social Behavior," MPIfG Discussion Paper 89/6, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    11. Machina, Mark J, 1987. "Choice under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 121-154, Summer.
    12. Green, Jerry R & Jullien, Bruno, 1989. "Ordinal Independence in Nonlinear Utility Theory: Erratum," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 119-119, April.
    13. Hong Chew Soo & Epstein Larry G. & Wakker Peter, 1993. "A Unifying Approach to Axiomatic Non-expected Utility Theories: Correction and Comment," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 183-188, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2005. "Are Universal Preferences Possible? Calibration Results for Non-Expected Utility Theories," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 633, Boston College Department of Economics.
    2. Carlier Guillaume & Dana Rose-Anne, 2006. "Law invariant concave utility functions and optimization problems with monotonicity and comonotonicity constraints," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 24(1/2006), pages 1-26, July.
    3. Grant, S. & Polak, B. & Kajii, A., 1996. "Preference for Information," Papers 298, Australian National University - Department of Economics.
    4. Hui Huang & Shunming Zhang, 2011. "The Distorted Theory of Rank-Dependent Expected Utility," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 12(2), pages 233-263, November.
    5. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2006. "Les nouveaux modèles de décision dans le risque et l’incertain : quel apport ? [The new models of decision under risk or uncertainty : What approach?]," MPRA Paper 25442, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Harless, David W & Camerer, Colin F, 1994. "The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1251-1289, November.
    7. Ormiston, Michael B. & E. Schlee, Edward, 1999. "Comparative statics tests between decision models under risk," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 145-166, October.
    8. Nakamura Y., 1996. "Rank dependent utility for arbitrary consequnce spaces," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 54-54, February.
    9. Jean Baccelli, 2018. "Risk attitudes in axiomatic decision theory: a conceptual perspective," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(1), pages 61-82, January.
    10. Shaw, W. Douglass & Woodward, Richard T., 2008. "Why environmental and resource economists should care about non-expected utility models," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 66-89, January.
    11. Chateauneuf, Alain, 1999. "Comonotonicity axioms and rank-dependent expected utility theory for arbitrary consequences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 21-45, August.
    12. Yves Alarie, 2000. "L’importance de la procédure dans les choix de loteries," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 76(3), pages 321-340.
    13. McCarthy, David & Mikkola, Kalle & Thomas, Teruji, 2016. "Utilitarianism with and without expected utility," MPRA Paper 72578, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    15. Chatterjee, Kalyan & Vijay Krishna, R., 2011. "A nonsmooth approach to nonexpected utility theory under risk," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 166-175.
    16. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    17. Dillenberger, David & Segal, Uzi, 2017. "Skewed noise," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 344-364.
    18. Schmidt, Ulrich & Zank, Horst, 2001. "A new axiomatization of rank-dependent expected utility with tradeoff consistency for equally likely outcomes," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 483-491, July.
    19. Alain Chateauneuf & Michèle Cohen, 2008. "Cardinal extensions of EU model based on the Choquet integral," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00348822, HAL.
    20. Marc Willinger, 1990. "La rénovation des fondements de l'utilité et du risque," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 41(1), pages 5-48.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:ratsoc:v:12:y:2000:i:2:p:185-225. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.