Notes on a constraint-reinforcement approach to the observational inference of satisfaction.

We still know comparatively little about what individuals find satisfying and how sources of satisfaction are interrelated. One approach to smdying sacisfactions has been to ask individuals about their levels of satisfacrion (or happiness, etc.). This approach appears to be reliable and fairly valid (see the review by Wilson, 1967). In some sima[ions, however, it is not possible or at least not feasible to obtain such self-reports. In these cases it would be desirable to infer what individuals find to be satisfying from observing their behaviors. These notes are concerned with this latter problem. They present a preliminary formulation of a framework (in which some terms will remain undefined) through which such inferences may be possible. The constraint-reinforcement approach proposed in this paper is based upon the union of two frameworks: that of reinforcement theory and that used in analyzing the problem of motivational decentralization. Elements of a decision theory orientation are also present. The framework developed in connection with the concept of motivational decentralization (Ackerman, Shelly, Sippla, & Sullwold, in press) looks at behavior in terms of the resources which support it and the constraints which limit it. "Motivational decentralization" itself refers to the structuring of a specified situation in such a way char each individual throirgh his own choici,s can obtain as great a level of satisfaction as possible. Behaviors which are supported by resources were considered to be "admissable behaviors" renamed available behaviors in this paper. Conversely constraints limir available behaviors. Inferences about sacisfaction, we feel, must be based upon studying "choices" berween available behaviors. Resources (constraints) may be classified as either material rerorrrces (conslraints) or personal resources (constraint.r). By a material resource we mean some things in the individual's physical environment (such as a car or stairway) which make a behavior possible. Material constraints ate defined in a complementary way. Personal resources are resources which reside within the indi\idual himself such as, for example, the abll~ty to persuade others to a particular poinc of view. When the alternarive behaviors che Individual considers can be made explicit, we can subdivide personal resources (conscralnu) into infornzation processing resources (~onstraints) and psychological resources (constraints). The former class refers to anything which expands (or limits) those alternatives the individual considers while the latter refers to those psychological characteristics of an individual which cause him to consider as feasible (or reject) an alternative he considers. The preceding framework requites assumptions about how satisfactions are related to behaviors before inferences about satisfactions can be made from observed behaviors. Our first assumption states that from among the "psychological representatives" of available behaviors the individual will sclect thar which is most satisfying. We use "psychological representatives" to emphasize the fact that selection is berween the individual's "perception" of the behaviors and their cocsequences-how they appear to him. Superficially, such an