each social context may have effects, but we do not know who affects beliefs and who affects behaviors, and how
and why. I believe sociologists are uniquely qualified to think about how to define the relevant social contexts in
which people are embedded and the mechanisms (e.g. through norms or anticipated resource allocations) through
which people are affected by members of their social contexts.
Sociologists can also address how social contexts are formed. For example, the friendship circles of CEOs
may be established through educational and work experiences early in their careers (Frank and Yasumoto 1998;
Kadushin 1995) or through participation in social organizations later in their careers. In this case, a sociological
understanding of the phenomenon would attend to the ultimate social effects of access to educational or social
institutions. Similarly, sociologists can help understand migration patterns that ultimately define the small
communities in which farmers become embedded.
Sociologists can also attend to how people make decisions about to whom to allocate resources, including
information, to others in their communities. Do people allocate resources to fulfill previous obligations or to
advance themselves in their social contexts? Do they differentiate between close relations and other members of
their social systems (Frank, forthcoming). The answers have implications for the efficiency of resource use and
ultimately for environmental impact.
The agenda I have outlined is basic research because we need deeper understanding of socially embedded
behavior to be able to anticipate the unintended consequences of policies and less formal action (Portes 2000).
Much human behavior that impacts the environment is already understood as a by-product of economically
motivated behavior. In this frame sociological motivations appear irrational. But sociological motivations are real
and rational, and it is our job to understand them. The sociological frame can also informal the dynamic interplay
between human action and environmental conditions, as the individual reaction to conditions is likely filtered by
the immediate social context.
ReferencesAkerlof, George A. and Rachel E. Kranton. 2002. “Identity and Schooling: Some Lessons for the Economics of
Education.” Journal of Economic Literature 40(4): 1167-201.
Frank, K.A. (Forthcoming) ATheory and Empirical test of Identification with the Collective as a Quasi-tie.@
Special issue of American Behavioral Scientist, guest edited by Pamela Paxton and James Moody
Frank, K.A., Muller, C., Schiller, K., Crosnoe, R., Riegle-Crumb, C., Strassman-Muller, A (In press). “The Social
Dynamics of Mathematics Course Taking in high school.” American Journal of Sociology, Vol 113: 6.
Frank, K.A. and Yasumoto, J. 1998. “Linking Action to Social Structure within a System: Social Capital Within
and Between Subgroups.” American Journal of Sociology 104 (3): 642-686.
Giordano, Peggy C. 2003. “Relationships in Adolescence.” Annual Review of Sociology 29: 257-81.
Granovetter, M. 1985. “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness.” American
Journal of Sociology 91(3):481-510.
Kadushin, C. 1966. “The Friends and Supporters of Psychotherapy: On Social Circles in Urban Life.” American
Sociological Review 31:786-802.
. 1995. “Friendship Among the French Financial Elite.” American Sociological Review 60:201-21.
Lin, Nan. 1999. “Sunbelt Keynote Address.” Connections 22(1):28_51.
__. 2001. Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.