The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A framework for social motives
Abstract
In any complex social system, the choices of a single person often affect the outcomes of others. When one takes the others' outcomes into account in making choices, we say one is manifesting a social motive. We assume that an individual's social motives are manifested in his social preferences. Any theory of decision or choice requires information about preferences, and so in addition to attempting to clarify definitions of social motives, this study provides a framework for theories of social decision. To begin, we establish operational definitions for the motives of self-interest, self-sacrifice, altruism, aggression, cooperation, and competition. These definitions are based on the simple operators of summations and differences. Then we examine some supplementary motives involving proportionality operators. Next we eliminate the assumption that an individual has a fixed preference structure which is applied to all social choices. This leads to a focus on the specific distribution of consequences resulting in conditional motives; conditional motives reflect varying basic motives depending on whether the individual is ahead or behind. All these motives are represented graphically, and a correspondence matrix is given to illustrate the interrelationships among the motives. Finally, we investigate combinations of the motives since such composites are less restrictive and can better account for observed behavior. Linear combinations are interesting but still too restrictive. Conjunctive, disjunctive and lexicographic combinations offer useful possibilities for characterizing particular social motives. Complex combinations involving general nonlinear forms arise and some representative forms are explored.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism
Trivers, R. L. (1971) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/406755 · Cited by 11,010
New directions in equity research.
Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W. (1973) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0033967 · Cited by 1,649
Cited by
In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis.
Brewer, M. B. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.307 · Cited by 3,411
The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations.
Fiske, A. P. (1992) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.99.4.689 · Cited by 2,510
Van Lange, P. A. M. (1999) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.337 · Cited by 1,127
Social utility and decision making in interpersonal contexts.
Loewenstein, G. F., Thompson, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (1989) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.3.426 · Cited by 1,122
2. Public Goods: A Survey of Experimental Research
Ledyard, J. O. (1995) · The Handbook of Experimental Economics · doi:10.1515/9780691213255-004 · Cited by 1,033
Metadata
- Authors
- Maccrimmon, K. R., & Messick, D. M.
- Venue
- Behavioral Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1976-03
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 86-100
- ISSN
- 1092-7026 (ISSN-L)
- 0005-7940
- 1099-1743
- OpenAlex
- W2007435127
- Cited by
- 172
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 17.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A framework for social motives. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bs.3830210203
- The paper
- Maccrimmon, K. R., & Messick, D. M. (1976). A framework for social motives. Behavioral Science. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830210203
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.