This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by COLLINS, R. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Emotional Energy as the Common Denominator of Rational Action

University of California, Riverside

A solution is proposed to several long-standing problems in the theory of rational social action: emotional or altruistic behavior that escapes cost/benefit calculations; the lack of a common metric among different spheres of action; and naturalistic evidence that choice in real-life situations involves little calculation. Emotional, symbolic, and value-oriented behavior is determined by a social mechanism, the dynamics of interaction rituals (IRs). Because IRs vary in the amount of solidarity they provide, and in their costs of participating, there is a market for ritual participation that shapes the distribution of individual behavior. IRs generate a variable level of emotional energy (EE) in each individual over time, and EE operates as the common denominator in terms of which choices are made among alternative courses of action. Individuals apportion their investments in work and in ritual participation to maximize their overall flow of EE. The economy of participating in interaction rituals shapes individual motivation for participating in the economy of material goods and services. Microsituational cognition is determined by the EE and the cognitive symbols generated by IRs, bringing about the tendency to narrow the range of alternatives that are consciously focused upon in choice situations. Nevertheless, the aggregation of microsituations is subject to interactional markets, which gives individuals a rational trajectory in the medium-run drift of behavior.

Rationality and Society, Vol. 5, No. 2, 203-230 (1993)
DOI: 10.1177/1043463193005002005


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. A. Sandlin and J. L. Callahan Deviance, Dissonance, and Detournement: Culture jammers` use of emotion in consumer resistance Journal of Consumer Culture, March 1, 2009; 9(1): 79 - 115. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. L. Sallach Social Theory and Agent Architectures: Prospective Issues in Rapid-Discovery Social Science Social Science Computer Review, May 1, 2003; 21(2): 179 - 195. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Wallis Evaluating Organizational Leadership in the New Zealand Public Sector in the Aftermath of the Rankin Judgement International Review of Administrative Sciences, March 1, 2002; 68(1): 61 - 72. [PDF]

				P. A. MELLOR Rational Choice or Sacred Contagion? "Rationality", "Non-rationality" and Religion Social Compass, June 1, 2000; 47(2): 273 - 292. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. Shilling The Undersocialised Conception of the Embodied Agent in Modern Sociology Sociology, November 1, 1997; 31(4): 737 - 754. [Abstract] [PDF]