Micromotives and Macrobehavior

Schelling, Thomas C. 1978. Micromotives and Macrobehavior. New York: Norton. Chs. 1-2.

Abstract
System of interaction: the aggregate influences individuals and individuals influence the aggregate.

One must understand the system of interaction to make a valid inference. It is usually wrong to infer something about the aggregate from the individual, or infer something about the individual from the aggregate (ecological fallacy).

Behavior is both purposive and contingent.


 * Purposive behavior: behavior that seeks to achieve personal goals, maximize one’s preferences (Undersocialized humans).


 * Contingent behavior : behavior that depends on what others are doing (Oversocialized humans).

People's behavior/choices depend on the behavior/choices of other people. By adapting to one's environment, one continues the perpetually evolving environment of them and others. The adhesive of the aggregate is a communication network. By communicating, an individual becomes a part of the system, maintains the system, and transforms it. Individuals do not comprehend the aggregate; e.g. one ant does not comprehend or need to comprehend the complexity of its colony.

Individual actions, when combined in the larger aggregate, form a different patterned outcome. Such an outcome does not necessarily respond to the intentions/desires of the individual. Equilibrium behavior is not necessarily good. The Nash Equilibrium of the Prisoner's Dilemma is not the best outcome. The free market is not perfect. "There is no mechanism that attunes individual responses to some collective accomplishment."

There is no single mechanism underlying all behaviors. Some aggregates are limited by their patterns The structure of the aggregate can lead to something true in the aggregate but not in the detail.

Place in Literature
Schelling, much like Granovetter, shows that one can only understand political behavior when considering BOTH individual motives and social influences. While Granovetter focuses on the theoretical justifications, Schelling provides a logical argument for behavoral studies to expand beyond the individualistic perspective. Schelling wrote this only 4 years after Hauser's article which claimed there is no need for contextual analysis. Schelling and Granovetter provide the motivation for the advancment of appropriate methodology for contextual analysis, an advancement later seen in Sprague.

Schelling shows that individual actions do not always translate into prefered aggregate outcomes, because there is no mechanism or natural law that garantees such perfect outcomes. For example, if everyone in a crowd personally prefers to not sit in the front row, it is a logical necessity that some individuals sit in the row closest to the speaker. There is a special relationship between an individual within an aggregate and that aggregate that can only be understood through consideration of the entire interaction.