Visit the Places

economia-informacion.com

psicologia-informacion.com


WORKS OF THE AUTHOR:

Book:

The Theory of the Senergicons Psico-sociological aspects of the Economic Underdevelopment

Dedication, Foreword and Chapter 19 of The Theory of the Senergicons


Book:

The Theory of the Optimal Distribution of the Income


The Theory of the Optimal Distribution of the Income in Spanish can be download of this place starting from the following three documents:

1 The Theory of the Optimal Distribution of the Income Instructions (English)

2 The Theory of the Optimal Distribution of the Income (Chapters 9 to 16 and 20 Spanish)

3 The Theory of the Optimal Distribution of the Income (Complete book Spanish)


Document 3 requires key number to be open. See instructions in document 1.


The translation to the English language of The Theory of the Senergicons can be download of this place starting from the following three documents:

1 The Theory of the Senergicons Instructions

2 The Theory of the Senergicons Chapters 1 to 11

3 The Theory of the Senergicons Chapters 12 to 19


Document 3 requires key number to be open. See instructions in document 1.


The documents 1, 2 and 3 of The Neofisiocratic Theory, as well as the documents 1 and 2 and 3 of The Theory of the Senergicons open up with the program Adobe Acrobat, which is free. To acquire Acrobat Reader v4.05 you should go to the place of Adobe


TO SEND THE PAGE TO A FRIEND AND COMMENTS

To send the address of this page to a friend

Comments




FastCounter by LinkExchange
 

Section of this document:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9
 

HOME
 

19.9 FORMULATION OF THE MODEL

In this section we will present a psychometric model that will help us to measure the attitude towards the abstract object "to steal." The model presented is only a proposition subject to discussion. In fact, its purpose is not only to suggest the way or manner in which a senergicon could be measured, but to present a scheme that will give rise to a discussion of this topic in the academic world. We will appreciate it if a copy of any suggestions or investigation on this topic could be sent to us at the University of Puerto Rico, Cayey campus.

In all behavior where a social norm is violated there are at least two senergicons or affective states present: one that energizes behavior toward the violation of the social norm and one that energizes behavior against the violation of the social norm. That is, we are dealing with a complex attitude where there are at least two affective states or senergicons. There is one exception. If the individual has not valorized and installed the value provided by the social norm, then in the violation of the social norm there will only be present the senergicon that initiated the violation of the social norm. In such a case there is no conflict. Given that the individual has no force in him working to impede or prevent him from violating the norm, the violation will be automatic and without hesitation or impediments whatsoever. Nevertheless, conflict is the general rule.

Consequently, usually the rule is that during the violation of a social norm there will always be, at least, two senergicons activated, one that incites the violation and another that impedes it.

For example, in the case of the social norm "do not steal" the object that incites to the person to steal could be money, which could be valorized by the individual as an object and can directly activate a to come closer pleasant senergicon, or it could serve to buy objects that are valorized and activate indirectly, through the mechanism of incentives (see chapter 8), senergicons that are to come closer pleasant. This or these senergicons energize the behavior in favor of or towards the violation of the social norm. The object that incites not to steal is the "social norm," which may be valorized by the individual as an abstract object and activate a to move away unpleasant senergicon. More precisely, the mechanics of this process would be the following: the object "money" or the objects related to this, activate a to come closer pleasant senergicons that energize behavior towards the object "money." The action alternative elaborated by conscious reason in order to satisfy the general behavior component of the to come closer, pleasant senergicon activated directly or indirectly by the object "money," could be "steal the money." But this action alternative turns out to be an abstract object that is negatively valued (social norm) that activates a to move away, unpleasant senergicon (compulsion) that will incite the individual to not steal the money.

Through this example we see that, in the majority of cases, in the process of violating a social norm there are at least two senergicons or affective states as determinants of the behavior in a complex attitude. This means that there could be more than two. For example, the related abstract object "punishment or sentence that is imposed on one who steals" can activate the senergicon fear, as well as the related abstract object "expectation of being caught" can activate the senergicon shame, in addition to fear.

Consequently, in order to measure the attitude of an individual towards stealing, we should formulate the model that establishes the relationships of cause and effect among the independent variables and the dependent variable, that is, between the activated senergicons and the final behavior consistent with the violation or not violation of the social norm . Afterwards, we should measure the intensity of the sensational component of each one of the senergicons implicated and determine the relation to the occurrence or not of the behavior towards stealing. First, let us determine what are dependent variable will be.

Our dependent variable Y is the behavior we want to predict. How can we define this variable? As we know, each senergicon has a general behavior component and a sensational component. This latter one energizes the behavior given in the general behavior component, which is to come closer or to move away from the object that activates the senergicon or of attacking or celebrating the object that activates the senergicon (see section "How Does a Senergicon Work?" in chapter 1). But this general behavior component, if true that it has a relation to the behavior of the individual toward the object is not, strictly speaking, the dependent variable Y that denotes the behavior that we wish to predict.

The behavior established by the general behavior component is abstract, not specific. We know, as Freud warned, that if the individual directly satisfied it he would end up dead or in prison (satisfaction of the instincts of the "id" in Freud) because he would fail to take into account the rest of the abstract objects or concrete objects related to it and that could have adverse consequences on the individual as, for example, the related abstract object, "possibility of going to prison." As a result, this general behavior component cannot be our dependent variable Y. Nevertheless, as we learned from our theory, from this instinctive behavior, not reflexive and generalized towards the encountered object, a particular behavior, response, or a specific concrete action alternative arises elaborated by conscious reasoning before that object. This is our dependent variable Y.
In other words, conscious reason (the "ego" in Freud's theory) has the goal of satisfying the general behavior component. In order to do that it elaborates action alternatives (specific behavior) that satisfy this general behavior component of the senergicon activated by the object encountered by the individual. In this manner one passes from behavior that is general, non-reflexive, and automatic, to behavior that is specific and that we finally observe and gives us the impression of being rational, that is, of not being affected by affective states.

But more specifically, our dependent variable Y is not the action alternative elaborated by conscious reason, but rather the decision of whether to carry out or execute this action alternative that is also made by conscious reason (see chapters 1 and 11). This decision made by conscious reason, as we already know from our model, is determined by the intensities of the activated senergicons that are related to this action alternative. That is, whether or not an action alternative is executed will depend on the result of the intensities of the sensational components of the senergicons implicated in this decision. In other words, the behavior before the objects encountered by the individual is determined by the execution or non execution (Y) of the action alternative or alternatives elaborated by conscious reasoning to satisfy the general behavior components of the senergicons activated by those objects. On the other hand, the execution or non execution of the action alternatives (behavior) is determined, in turn, by the set of senergicons activated (energizers of behavior before those objects) that are dominant.

In summary, the execution or non execution, occurrence or non occurrence, of the action alternative is our dependent variable Y and the independent variables X1, X2, …Xn that we intend to measure are the sensational components of the senergicons activated by the different objects under consideration by the individual: the original object and the objects related to it and/or with the action alternatives elaborated by conscious reason.

Our first independent variable X1 is constituted by the sensational component of the senergicon that activates the object "money" or the objects related to money; that is, it is constituted by the intensity of the senergicon happiness (temptation) that incites the individual to execute the action alternative "to steal."

In opposition to the senergicon happiness (temptation) stands the senergicon activated by the valorization of the abstract object established by the social norm "do not steal" and which is anxiety (compulsion). As a result, our second independent variable X2 is constituted by the sensational component of the senergicon that activates the abstract object established by the social norm.
Please note that the greater the temptation X1, the greater should be the intensity of the anxiety X2 that the individual should experience in order to not steal the money. In other words, the greater the intensity of the senergicon operating against the social norm, the greater the intensity should be of the senergicon that activates the abstract object "social norm" to prevent the violation from taking place.

The temptation of profit is not the only element that can be present in complex attitude held by each individual towards the social norm "do not steal." Theoretically, there can be many other elements. Nevertheless, we can say that this one is of fundamental importance. Therefore, if we do not incorporate it into the model of regression, it will be reflected in the magnitude of the constant. Consequently, it is necessary to correctly identify all of these important factors. As we have already stated, other abstract objects that are related and that are of great importance would be the possibility of getting caught, which activates the shame senergicon, and the consequence of being caught, which activates the senergicon fear. If the sentence for stealing is death, the fear senergicon would be more intense than if it were life imprisonment. If the sentence was ten months of prison, the fear would not be as great, etc.. Consequently, our third independent variable X3 is constituted by the sensational component of the shame senergicon and our fourth independent variable X4, by the sensational component of the senergicon fear.

Once the most important related objects in a complex attitude are identified and incorporated in the model, we should consider those that are not so important. If we suppose that the rest of the factors that can affect an individual in his decision to steal have a small effect and that these operate in both directions, that is, some incite action against the decision to steal and others incite action in favor, then we can incorporate all of these elements in the model through the introduction of an stochastic value or aleatory (random) variable that contains all of these effects. Due to this factor that describes the unpredictable or aleatory part of behavior or human responses, we have to introduce in our model the element of probability. In that sense, every time we refer to the average intensity of anxiety, shame, or fear that an individual should experience in order to not steal, say, ten dollars, the aleatory or chance element of human behavior should be included, determined by the multiple factors that in one sense or another may take part in the individual's decision to violate or not violate the social norm. The question should be rephrased in the following way: what is the average intensity of the anxiety, shame, or fear senergicon should an individual possess so that the probability of not stealing ten dollars is X%?

If we were able to identify the total number of objects (variables) that determine the complex attitude of an individual, the aleatory factor would be eliminated, that is, would be zero, and the prediction of behavior based on the model would be perfect; the model would be certain 100% of the time it made a prediction. But, since this is impossible, the aleatory variable contains the influences of the variables that have a small effect that operate in both directions canceling each other out, and the constant, those variables that have a great effect that do not cancel each other out.

We have formulated a model where the behavior or attitude Y towards stealing is a function of multiple variables X1, X2,…Xn. If we assume, to make things more simple, that this relationship is lineal, the general expression of the model would be:

(19.1) Y = a+b1X1 - b2X2 - b3X3 - b4X4 + E





where:

Y = decision to steal or not to steal

X1 = sensational component of the senergicon that determines the individual's attitude towards money (level of happiness or temptation that the object money produces in the individual, measured by GSR).

X2 = sensational component of the senergicon that determines the individual's attitude towards stealing in the first dimension of the tricotomic attitude (level of anxiety that is produced in the individual by the abstract object constituted by the very act of stealing, measured by GSR).

X3 = sensational component of the senergicon that determines the individual's attitude towards stealing in the second dimension of the triconomic attitude (level of shame that is produced in the individual by the abstract object constituted by the possibility of being discovered while stealing, measured by the GSR).

X4 = sensational component of the senergicon that determines the individual's attitude towards punishment (level of fear that is produced in the individual by the abstract object constituted by the possibility of "to be punished," measured by the GSR).

a = influence of other installed values that may be important or very determinative and that were not incorporated into the model in the form of variables.

E = influence of other factors of little importance that act in an aleatory way, canceling themselves and measurement errors out.





As the reader will observe, we are dealing here with a complex attitude. Note that there is a coefficient b1 with a positive sign and three coefficients b2, b3, and b4 with negative signs. In order to simplify the explanation, let us assume that the constant "a" is zero. Then, if the product b1X1 with a positive sign, that denotes the intensity of happiness or temptation that money produces and that incites the individual to steal, is greater than the sum of the products b2X2, b3X3, and b4X4 with negative signs and that incite the individual not to steal, then Y will be greater than zero (Y>0). In such a case, the motivation of the individual towards stealing, in net terms, will be positive and the individual will execute the action alternative "to steal."

The force or energy with he executes that action alternative will depend on just how great the motivation is, that is, how much greater than zero the magnitude of Y will be. If, on the other hand, Y was equal to zero or less than zero (Y<0), it would be because the senergicons with negative signs prevail and the individual or his conscious reason will not execute the action alternative "to steal."

Please observe that to postulate coefficients b1, b2, b3, and b4 different from 1 implies that to postulate the intensities of the sensational components of the different variables X1, X2, X3, and X4 are not able to be compared. In other words, the effect of an intensity contained in X1 about the behavior (about the decision to steal Y>0) is not the same as the effect of the same intensity registered in the polygraph for X2 or the other independent variables. In short, the effect of a given intensity provided by the sensational component of the happiness senergicon (X1) measured in the polygraph in terms of the GSR, should not necessarily expected to be the same as the effect of the same intensity or measurement of the GSR of the shame senergicon (X3) on Y. Consequently, those differences are the ones that would be picked up in the coefficients.

If the necessary technology was available to allow us to have the instruments to identify without a doubt each one of these senergicons or affective states X1,X2,…Xn and measure the intensities of their sensational components, then behavior could be predicted with much less of a margin for error. That is, if there was an instrument that when it was used on an individual could correctly identify each one of the emotions or affective states that the individual was experiencing at that precise moment before an object, and that, in addition, it could register the magnitude or intensity of the sensational component of each emotion or activated affective state, then we could estimate the coefficients b1, b2, b3, and b4 and the behavior could be predicted with only a small margin or error. That way a business, for example a bank, could predict who could steal money if the opportunity presented itself and who would not. In short, who would execute the action alternative Y > 0 and who would not Y < 0.
The existence of such instruments, in conjunction with this theory, would transform the scientific practice in the field of psychology, making it a highly practical and utilitarian discipline. Consequently, the rhythm of development with which these instruments of measurement begin to appear will mark the rhythm of development of psychology premised on this theory.
As long as these instruments do not exist, we should try to measure the sensational component of the senergicons indirectly, through the GSR or pupil response and to isolate the effect of a variable, for example, X2 or X3, on Y we should depend on the development of experimental design. Please notice that if it is possible to isolate the effect of an independent variable on Y, it would not be necessary to determine its respective coefficient.

Then, the problem of measurement would be reduced to the apparently innocent task of being able to produce an experimental design that will isolate or separate the effect of X1 and X2 on Y from all of the other effects X3 and X4, and then to separate the effect of X1 and X3 on Y from all of the other effects X2 and X4.

The indirect measurements of the sensational components of the senergicons, through the GSR or pupil response, suffer not only from the problem of the margin of error of the measurements taken, but also from the difficulty in identifying the affective states or implicated senergicons and, in addition, separating from the obtained GSR reading, how much of the register corresponds to one senergicon and how much to another. That is, the enormously difficult problem arises of having to isolate from the readings obtained from the GSR just what it is that corresponds to one senergicon and what corresponds to another.

But the most serious problem arises from the effect that this lack of determination of the identity of the senergicon under question has, and its corresponding measurement of the sensational component, on the correlation that may exist between what is measured through GSR and the individual's behavior. That is, given that in the violation of a social norm there are at least two senergicons activated (X1 and X2) that move in opposite directions and that energize behavior towards two objects that are mutually exclusive, for example, violate the norm (to steal) Y > 0 and not to violate the norm Y< 0, it could happen that both are very intense and register in the GSR a large magnitude. But since they are counterparts these magnitudes would cancel each other out Y = 0, in the same way that two small magnitudes that are counterparts would cancel each other out. Consequently, the magnitude of GSR obtained for X1 and X2 would not have any correlation with the execution or non execution of the action alternative Y. That is, the magnitude of the GSR obtained is not necessarily expected to have a correlation with behavior, unless we are able to specify the relationships between the variables (counterpart effect of the senergicons) and separate its effects in an individual manner from that of the magnitude read in the GSR. The same applies with respect to other physiological measurements such as that of pupil response.

We should have all of these limitations in mind so that we do not become frustrated by the results of the experiments we perform. Our progress will depend, as we stated earlier, on the development of instruments that are able to identify, isolate, and measure separately, but simultaneously, the presence and magnitude of the sensational components of all the senergicons that may be present or activated in a complex attitude before an object.3 Whatever we are today able to do with the instruments available (essentially the polygraph) will depend on the ingeniousness we employ to develop experimental design that try to isolate in the best manner possible the effect of an independent variable X2 on another dependent one Y, eliminating the effect of the rest of the independent variables X1, X3, and X4 on Y. This will be accomplished by developing experimental design where the values of the rest of the independent variables X1, X3, and X4 are zero or constant. For example, if we manage to maintain the level of the senergicon temptation X1 constant, and maintain at zero the level of the rest of the senergicons shame X3 and fear X4, the model would be reduced to the following equation:

(19.2) Y = a + b1 + b2X2







where is the sensational component of the senergicon "temptation" to steal, that is expected to be constant or approximately constant. This is accomplished by making sure that the amount of money to be stolen is always the same, for example, ten dollars, or $100. Please observe that if we manage to maintain X1 constant, the equation b1 becomes a constant and the previous function is reduced to :

(19.3) Y = A - X1







where:

A = (a + b1X1) and X1 = b1X1







In the case of the relationship between the decision to steal and the shame senergicon X3 the relationship to estimate would be:

(19.4) Y = A = -X3







Please observe that when proceed in this fashion it is not necessary to determine the coefficient b1. The experimental design that we present in the following two sections have as its purpose to isolate the effect of the variables compulsive anxiety X2 and shame X3 on the decision to steal or lie Y.



HOME




Section of this document:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9