What are the public policy implications of each theory?

Question

The rational choice theory
the Trait theory
Social structures theory
conflict theory
and social processes theory

Answer 1

Rational choice theory assumes human behavior is guided by instrumental reason. Accordingly, individuals always choose what they believe to be the best means to achieve their given ends. Thus, they are normally regarded as maximizing utility, the "currency" for everything they cherish (for example: money, a long life, moral standards). As the modern formulation of much older descriptions of rational behavior, Rational choice theory belongs to the foundational theory of economics. Over the last decades it has also become increasingly prevalent in other social sciences.

Rational choice theory adopts methodological individualism; it conceives of social situations or collective behaviors as the exclusive result of individual actions. However, rational choice theory is not only applied to individual human actors. Often, the same pursuit of cherished values is assumed for collective entities, for example corporations or national governments.

For a choice to be described as "rational", a number of assumptions are ordinarily stated. In economics, the key concept is preference: a preference ranking for a set of items is described as rational if preferences are:

complete (all items from the choice set can be ranked from lower to higher)
transitive (if A is preferred to B, and B to C, then A is preferred to C).
Thus, the decision-maker is able to compare all of the alternatives, and all comparisons are consistent.

If uncertainty is involved, then the independence axiom is often assumed in addition to rational preferences.
If decision-making over time is involved, time consistency is generally assumed as well.
Finally, the rational decision-maker must always choose the item he or she prefers.
Often, to simplify calculation and ease prediction, some rather unrealistic assumptions are made about the world. These can include:

An individual has precise information about exactly what will occur under any choice made. (Alternatively, an individual has a reliable probability distribution describing what will happen under any choice made.)
An individual has the cognitive ability to weigh every choice against every other choice.
An individual is aware of all possible choices.
Sometimes these assumptions have the status of "as if" propositions—statements that are not meant to be literally true but that predict the behaviors individuals are believed to exhibit.

Both the assumptions and the behavioral predictions of ""rational choice theory"" have sparked criticism from a number of camps. Some people have developed models of bounded rationality, which hope to be more psychologically plausible without completely abandoning the idea that reason underlies decision-making processes. For a long time, a popular strain of critique was a lack of empirical basis, but experimental economics and experimental game theory have largely changed that critique (although they have added other critiques, mainly by demonstrating some human behavior that consistently deviates from rational choice theory). Early critiques of the rational choice approach in political science for example, argued that the rational choice theorists could not explain why people voted, much less make more sophisticated arguments about political behavior.

Rational choice has had far-reaching impacts on the study of political science, especailly in fields like the study of interest groups, elections, behaviour in legislatures, coalitions, and bureaucracy (see Dunleavy, 1991).

Why rational choice theory?

One question that can be asked is why people try to base their models on concepts such as "reason", "preferences", and what is implied by them, free will. Some potential reasons: a) They see people as "rational" beings, and thus believe that a model in which they are represented as such should be reasonably accurate; b) Assumptions of rationality have useful formal properties; c) The individualistic methodology and the mathematical formalization of rational choice behavior allow for an easier understanding of complex social phenomena.





Trait theory is an approach to personality theory in psychology.

The emotions, thoughts and behavior patterns that a person has are typically referred to as a personality (Kassin, 2003) and can vary immensely between individuals. In making the area amenable to scientific enquiry some, using the statistical technique of factor analysis, have hypothesized that the personality contains prominent aspects that are stable across situations called traits. In particular, Eysenck (1967,1991) has suggested that personality is reducible to three major traits (3F), though others (e.g. McCrae and Costa, 1987) have suggested there are five (5F). There are other proponents who suggest there are more factors than this (e.g. Saucier and Goldberg, 1998; Raymond Cattell, 1970).




[edit] How the taxonomy is defined
The 3F model is comprised of the traits, ‘extraversion’, ‘neuroticism’ and ‘psychoticism’ but the 5F model contains ‘openness’, ‘conscientiousness’, ‘extraversion’, ‘agreeableness’ and ‘neuroticism’. These traits exist because they are the highest-level factors of a hierarchical taxonomy based on the statistical technique factor analysis. They are the result of factor analysis on lower-order traits which themselves are the product of factor analysis on habits which in turn exist because of factor analyses on behaviours. Indeed, such a method produces factors that are continuous, bipolar, can be distinguished from states and can describe individual differences (Goldberg, 1993). Indeed, both approaches use self-report questionnaires to try and capture the top-level factors by means of the lower levels. However, although they use broadly the same methodology there are some differences. Firstly, the nature of the questionnaires are subtly different; for example, 3F uses a binary answering system of ‘yes’ and ‘no’ while 5F use a five-point scale. Secondly, there are organisational differences; for instance, the 3F model is strict in as much as a four tier hierarchy is adhered to and the three top-level factors are intended to be orthogonal (uncorrelated) (Eysenck, 1990), although Eysenck & Eysenck (1991) found small positive correlations between psychoticism and the two other traits particularly in males. Conversely, the 5F model has been criticized for mixing up these levels and corrupting the orthogonal relationships (Block, 1995; Draycott and Kline, 1995). Eysenck (1992a) argued that fewer factors were superior to a larger number of partly related ones. Thus while the two approaches are comparable because of the use of factor analysis to construct hierarchical taxonomies they differ in their setup. In particular, there are differences in the organization and number of high-level factors. However, there are similarities and differences between lower-order factors too.


Lower order factors

Similarities between lower-order factors for ‘psychoticism’ and the low-order factors ‘openness’, ‘agreeableness’ and ‘conscientiousness’ (Data from Matthews, Deary & Whiteman, 2003)There are two top level factors that both approaches agree on: 'extraversion' and 'neuroticism'. Both approaches broadly accept that extraversion is associated with sociability and positive affect while neuroticism is associated with emotional instability and negative affect (Matthews, Deary & Whiteman, 2003). Indeed, many of the lower-order factors employed are similar. For instance, both approaches contain a factor for sociability/gregariousness, for activity levels and for assertiveness for the high-order factor 'extraversion'. However, there are differences too. First, the 3F approach contains nine lower-order factors and the 5F approach has six (Matthews et al., 2003), which is a generalized difference between the two approaches. More specifically, the lower-order factors differ between high-order factors. For instance, within 'extraversion' the 3F approach includes ‘carefree’ as a factor but the 5F approach makes no such reference. Similarly, there are differences within 'neuroticism', with ‘guilt’ as a factor in the 3F approach but not in the 5F approach. The pattern that emerges is that the 3F approach is more willing to condense more lower-order factors into fewer high-order factors. In fact, such a pattern is true when other high-order factors are examined. For instance, 'psychoticism' incorporates some of the polar opposites of the lower-order factors of ‘openness’, ‘agreeableness’ and ‘conscientiousness’ (Matthews et al., 2003). A high scorer on tough-mindedness in ‘psychoticism’ would score lowly on tender-mindedness in ‘agreeableness’ (see image below for more examples). Therefore, while the two approaches contain similarities in their lower-level factors there are also large differences. In particular, most of the differences stem from the 3F approach’s emphasis on fewer high-order factors, which means many of the low-order factors for ‘psychoticism’ are observable in the lower order factors of the 5F approach and vice versa.





Social theory refers to the use of theoretical frameworks to explain and analyze social patterns and large-scale social structures.

Though many commentators consider social theory a branch of sociology, it functions inherently in an interdisciplinary manner, as it uses ideas from and contributes to a plethora of disciplines such as anthropology, economics, theology, history, and many others.

Social theory attempts to answer the question 'what is?', not 'what should be?'. One should therefore not confuse it with philosophy or with belief.



Social theory as a discipline
Austin Harrington in his work Modern Social Theory: an introduction (2005) discusses the meaning of social theory, stating that while the term did not exist in any language before the twentieth century, its origins are ancient and lie in two words, ‘social’ from the Latin socius and ‘theory’ from the Greek theoria. In ancient times, theoria meant contemplation and reflection. It helped the Greeks make sense of their lives, and to question the value and meaning of things around them. Social theory emerged at the same time as modernity and was largely equated with an attitude of critical thinking, based on rationality, logic and objectivity, and the desire for knowledge through ‘aposteriori’ methods of discovery, rather than ‘apriori’ methods of tradition.


Social theory in relation to hard science
Social theory always had an uneasy relationship with the more traditional academic disciplines; many of its key thinkers never held a university position.

Compared to workers in disciplines within the “objective“ natural sciences -- such as physics or chemistry -- social theorists may make less use of the scientific method and of other fact-based methods to prove a point. Instead, they tackle very large-scale social trends and structures using hypotheses that they cannot easily prove, except over the course of time. Criticism from opponents of social theories often objects to this. Extremely critical theorists, such as deconstructionists or postmodernists, may argue that any type of research or method has inherent flaws. Often, however, thinkers may present their ideas as social theory because the social reality that those ideas describe appears so overarching as to remain unprovable. The social theories of modernity or anarchy can exemplify this.

However, social theories still play a major part in the sciences of sociology, anthropology, economics, and others. Objective science-based research often begins with a hypothesis formed from a social theory. Likewise, science-based research can often provide support for social theories or can spawn new ones.

For instance, statistical research grounded in the scientific method that finds a severe income disparity between women and men performing the same occupation can complement the underlying premises of the complex social theories of feminism or of patriarchy.

In general, and in particular among adherents of pure sociology, social theory has appeal because it takes the focus away from the individual (the way in which most humans look at the world) and focuses it on the society itself and the social forces which control individuals' lives. This sociological insight (often termed the sociological imagination) has appealed to students and others dissatisfied with the status quo because it looks beyond the assumption of societal structures and patterns as purely random.






In sociology, conflict theory states that the society or organization functions so that each individual participant and its groups struggle to maximize their benefits, which inevitably contributes to social change such as changes in politics and revolutions. The theory is mostly applied to explain conflict between social classes, proletarian versus bourgeoisie; and in ideologies such as capitalism versus socialism. The theory attempts to refute functionalism, which considers that societies and organizations function so that each individual and group plays a specific role, like organs in the body. There are radical basic assumptions (society is eternally in conflict, which might explain social change), or moderate ones (custom and conflict are always mixed). The moderate version allows for functionalism to operate as an equally acceptable theory since it would accept that even negative social institutions play a part in society's self-perpetuation.

The essence of conflict theory is best epitomized by the classic 'pyramid structure' in which an elite dictates terms to the larger masses. All major institutions, laws, and traditions in the society are designed to support those who have traditionally been in power, or the groups that are perceived to be superior in the society according to this theory. This can also be expanded to include any society's 'morality' and by extension their definition of deviance. Anything that challenges the control of the elite will likely be considered 'deviant' or 'morally reprehensible.' The theory can be applied on both the macro level (like the US government or Soviet Russia, historically) or the micro level (a church organization or school club). In summary, conflict theory seeks to catalogue the ways in which those in power seek to stay in power. In understanding conflict theory, social class competition plays a key part.

The following are four primary assumptions of modern conflict theory:

Competition. Competition over scarce resources (money, leisure, sexual partners, and so on) is at the heart of all social relationships. Competition rather than consensus is characteristic of human relationships.
Structural inequality. Inequalities in power and reward are built into all social structures. Individuals and groups that benefit from any particular structure strive to see it maintained.
Revolution. Change occurs as a result of conflict between social class' competing interests rather than through adaptation. It is often abrupt and revolutionary rather than evolutionary.
War. Even war is a unifier of the societies involved, as well as war may set an end to whole societies.
Conflict theory was elaborated in the United Kingdom by Max Gluckman and John Rex, in the United States by Lewis A. Coser and Randall Collins, and in Germany by Ralf Dahrendorf, all of them being less or more influenced by Karl Marx, Ludwig Gumplovicz, Vilfredo Pareto, Georg Simmel, and other founding fathers of European sociology.




Social exchange theory is a social psychological and sociologicalperspective that explains social change and stability as a process of negotiated exchanges between parties. Social exchange theory posits that all human relationships are formed by the use of a subjective cost-benefit analysis and the comparison of alternatives. For example, when a person perceives the costs of a relationship as outweighing the perceived benefits, then the theory predicts that the person will choose to leave the relationship. The theory has roots in economics, psychology and sociology.

For social exchange theorists, when the costs and benefits are equal in a relationship, then that relationship is defined as equitable. The notion of equity is a core part of social exchange theory.

Social exchange theory is intimately tied to rational choice theory, and features all of its main assumptions.



History
Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor introduced social penetration theory in the 1970’s in the social psychology field. The theory is strongly tied to the communication field.

Questions about the nature of social exchanges naturally arose out of social penetration theory, leading scholars to examine the motivations and processes by which relationships grow or dissolve. The examination of social exchange led John Thibaut and Harold Kelley to develop social exchange theory.

The early variations of Social Exchange Theory stem from Gouldner's (1960) norm of reciprocity, which simply argues that people ought to return benefits given to them in a relationship. Peter M. Blau built on the work done by George C. Homans in Exchange and Power in Social Life (1964). Later modifications to this theory focus attention on relational development and maintenance rules (see Murstein et al.).


[edit] Important works
American sociologist George Caspar Homans is usually credited with the consolidation of the foundations of Social Exchange Theory. Homans’s article entitled “Social Behavior as Exchange” is viewed as the seminal work on this theory. Works by Richard Emerson, Peter M. Blau, and Karen Cook are also important and often reference Homans, as do many other articles and books on the subject.

Another important work is Mark Knapp’s Social Intercourse: From Greeting to Goodbye. In this work, Knapp specifically defines stages of relationship development, including initiation, experimentation and bonding. In addition,Gerald Miller and Mark Steinburg’s book, Between People, added to the theory by noting the differences in the types of information we have about one another: cultural, sociological and psychological (Miller, 2005).

Answer 2

You can look that information up on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Good Luck!!!

Answer 3

hard stuff. seek over yahoo and bing. that will can assist!