Menus of Choice: the Social Embeddedness of Decisions

  • Kristen Purcell
  • Lee Clarke
  • Linda Renzulli


How to think about constraint and choice is a basic problem in social theory.1 Convincing explanations of behavior usually reference how power operates, why people think what they do, and how and why people relate to each other. Social life inherently involves someone constraining the options of someone else. It inherently involves some options being considered more possible than others. And it inherently involves the myriad connections that people find themselves in, connections that people use as resources to get through the day and as reference points for moral direction.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    For a different use of these same concepts see B. Mintz and M. Schwartz, Power Structure of American Business ( Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985 ).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Starr, ‘Social Benefit Versus Technological Risk,’ Science, 165 (1969): 1232–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    See, for example, H. Nowotny, ‘Scientific Purity and Nuclear Danger,’ pp. 243–64 in E. Mendelsohn, P. Weingart, and R. Whitely, eds, The Social Production of Scientific Knowledge ( Boston, MA: D. Reidel, 1977 );CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. S. Rayner and R. Cantor, ‘How Fair is Safe Enough? The Cultural Approach to Social Technology Choice,’ Risk Analysis, 7 (1) (1987): 3–9;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. R. Kasperson, O. Renn, P. Slovic, H. Brown, J. Emel, and R. Goble, J. Kasperson, and S. Ratick, ‘The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework,’ Risk Analysis, 8 (2) (1988): 177–87;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. W. Freudenburg and S. Pastor, ‘Public Responses to Technological Risks: Toward a Sociological Perspective,’ Sociological Quarterly, 33 (3) (1992): 389–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 4.
    B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, S. Read, and B. Combs, ‘How Safe is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes Toward Technological Risks and Benefits,’ Policy Sciences, 9 (1978): 127–52;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. C. Perrow, Normal Accidents ( New York: Basic Books, 1984 ).Google Scholar
  9. 5.
    L. Clarke, ‘Explaining Choices Among Technological Risks,’ Social Problems, 35 (1) (1988): 501–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 6.
    J. Gusfield, The Culture of Public Problems: Drinking-Driving and the Symbolic Order ( Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981 );Google Scholar
  11. T. Pinch, J. Trevor, and W. Bijker, ‘The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or, How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other,’ Social Studies of Science, 18 (2) (1988): 147–67;Google Scholar
  12. R. Stallings, ‘Media Discourse and the Social Construction of Risk,’ Social Problems, 37 (1) (1990): 80–95;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. S. Hilgartner, ‘The Social Construction of Risk Objects: Or, How to Pry Open Networks of Risk,’ pp. 39–53 in J. Short and L. Clarke, eds, Organizations, Uncertainties, and Risk ( Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1989 ).Google Scholar
  14. 7.
    W. Freudenburg, ‘Risk and Recreancy: Weber, the Division of Labor, and the Rationality of Risk Perceptions,’ Social Forces, 71 (4) (1993): 909–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 8.
    G. Yago, The Decline of Transit: Urban Transportation in German and US Cities, 1900–1970 ( New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984 ).Google Scholar
  16. 9.
    J. Jasper, ‘The Political Life Cycle of Technological Controversies,’ Social Forces, 68 (2) (1988): 357–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 11.
    P. Rothe, Beyond Traffic Safety ( New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1994 ).Google Scholar
  18. 12.
    We borrow this term from A. Stinchcombe, ‘Social Structure and Organizations,’ pp. 142–93 in J. March, Handbook of Organizations ( Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965 ).Google Scholar
  19. 13.
    K. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States ( New York: Oxford University Press, 1985 ), pp. 159.Google Scholar
  20. 14.
    S. Lichtenstein and P. Slovic, ‘Reversals of Preference Between Bids and Choices in Gambling Decisions,’ Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89 (1) (1971): 46–55;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. P. Slovic and S. Lichtenstein, ‘Preference Reversals: A Broader Perspective,’ American Economic Review, 72 (4) (1983): 596–605;Google Scholar
  22. A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, ‘The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,’ Science, 211 (1981): 453–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 15.
    See, for instance, A. Mazur, ‘Disputes Between Experts,’ Minerva, 11 (2) (1973): 243–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. C. Helmer, ‘Social Structure, Psychology, and the Estimation of Risk,’ Annual Review of Sociology, 14 (1988): 491–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 16.
    S. Pious, ‘Biases in the Assimilation of Technological Breakdowns: Do Accidents Make Us Safer’?’ Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21 (13) (1991): 1058–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristen Purcell
  • Lee Clarke
  • Linda Renzulli

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations