1. Formal Modeling and Simulation of Cultural Differences: A Grid-Group / Coherence Approach Sun-Ki Chai Dept. of Sociology University of Hawai`i

2. Development of a general, predictive model of cultural change Integration with choice-theoretical model of action Software implementation into decision- support and simulation environments Objectives

3. Representation of culture through grid- group framework Modeling of cultural change through coherence model Implementation in simulation and decision- support systems Approach

4. conventional rationality approach: individual maximizes preferences (utility) based upon beliefs egoistic, materialist preferences beliefs based upon observation and (logical) inference conventional cultural approach: social identity determines thought and action rules vary according to society Rationality vs. Culture in Modeling Action: The Bogus vs. The Ineffable

5. Conventional Rationality-based approach: single model generalizable to multiple, even novel contexts theories can be cumulated into larger whole tends to produce falsifiable predictions (though often anomalous) Conventional Culture-based approach: sensitive to social differences and personal development deeper and more nuanced depiction of social process avoids predictive anomalies (because it avoids prediction) Strengths of each Approach

6. specifying dimensions of culture in general fashion retaining simplicity and analytical tractability formalizing in way that is compatible with choice- theoretic models of action across full-range of environments modeling cultural change algorithmically combining generality and predictive determinacy Main Steps and Hurdles to Integration Conventional cultural typologies, e.g. (modern vs. traditional, Hofstede and “comparative capitalisms”) tend to focus on first two points but do not provide general implication for behavior.

7. ABSTRACT DIMENSIONS Grid = extent to which social rules prescribe and restrict action Group = extent to which identity is directed towards others Widely used in Cult./Soc. Anthropology and Political Science: Douglas 1970, 1978; Douglas and Wildavsky 1982; Wildavsky et al. 1990. Adapted for choice-theoretic models in Chai and Wildavsky 1993; Chai and Swedlow 1998. Grid-Group Framework for Representation of Culture

8. More abstract than competing frameworks for representing cultural differences Operationalization methods straightforward and well-tested Works well as front-end to “thin” rational choice models of decision-making Fits with abstract dimensions of social organization found in social theories, e.g. regulation and integration Decomposes into four major cultural types individualist – low grid / low group fatalist – high grid / low group hierarchical – high grid / high group egalitarian – low grid / low group Attributes of Grid-Group Framework

9. Grid-Group Transformations within Defined Group Boundaries Groupness-transformed payoff: y i = (  j<>i g i x j ) + x i Gridness-transformed payoff: u i = y i (ord(a i = o i ) + (1 –h i ) ord(a i <> o i )) where g i and h i are group and grid coefficients for individual i, a i is her action, x j is untransformed payoff, and o i her specified operation under standard procedures.

10. Expected Regret: subjective probability-weighted difference between maximal utility possible in a particular state of the environment and the utility provided by a chosen set of actions Coherence: expected regret of zero PREFERENCE AND BELIEF ASSUMPTIONS OF MODEL Meta-optimization Environment constrains Beliefs No “Yogic Utility” Parametric form, but not parametric values, determined by exposure to social communication Forms considered in order of message prevalence of communications describing such forms, but parameter weightings can be accepted or rejected. c.f. Chai 2001. Concepts and Assumptions of Coherence Model

11. actors are engaged in a collective process of constructing their own identities this process is aimed at creating an individual and collective sense of self that is both positive and consistent preferences and beliefs are not mere precursors to action, but there is a mutually causative relationship between these entities Intuitions behind Model

12. Coherence (preference-based): adjustment of g, h to minimize d Expected Regret (single-period, individual form): d =  s (u(s,a*(s)) – u(s,a))) p(s) ds where a*(s)=argmax a  A u(s,a) a=argmax a  A, s  S  s u(s,a) p(s) ds s states of the environment, a actions, u utility function, and p subjective probabilities

13. Means will become ends (functional autonomy of motives) iff there exists there exists perception of some state of environment where alternative actions superior Sour grapes / forbidden fruit effect caused by actions that are perceived to preserve / alter the status quo more than alternatives Wishful / unwishful thinking strongest when an individual adopts actions that are subject to more / less variation in comparison to alternatives Effects depend on and magnify in proportion to subjective probability and extent to which chosen action will be suboptimal Some non-intuitive implications of coherence model...

14. Mutual altruism will be generated in groups engaging in repeated collective action, particularly where public goods are generated more reliably than private goods Materialistic culture will be generated by clearly defined structures of mobility in which the relative returns to vocational choices is not circumstance-dependent Explicit ideologies will be adopted by groups whose members face incoherence with regards to a similar set of action choices. Some implications linking structure to culture

15. Risk seeking or adversion: x = f(w); f’’(w) > 0 f’’(w) < 0 implies risk aversion; f”(w) > 0 implies risk seeking “Subjective” material payoffs are not a linear function of the quantity of goods Time discounting: U = ∑ T δ t u Cumulative utility is a function of period-specific utilities multiplied by a “discount factor” representing devaluation of deferred utility “Cultural” implications built into conventional economic models

16. Receptive technology infrastructure Concentrated, readily accessible multinational, multicultural population Robust institutional academic expertise in multicultural research Site for multinational government and private collaboration and research Advantages of Hawai`i as a site for Developing Models of Culture and Action