Inductive and Deductive Theory

Inductive and Deductive Theory

The understanding of inductive and deductive theory can be traced from the explanation of Guillermino Jasso.  Jasso came up with a formula to measure the measurable components of distributive justice. The formula was meant specifically meant to find out whether people access to equal treatment in their lives.  The formula incorporated the variables such as J that implies that justice, a stands for actual holdings a person has while C represents comparison holdings of another person. The full formula abbreviation was; J=A-C (Jasso, Törnblom & Sabbagh, 2016).

Her research and mathematic calculation hypothesized that distributive justice could be understood well when actual person holdings are compared with that of another person. Actual holdings involved things such as beauty, happiness, intelligence, among many other variables.  The research was based on whether all the people were under equal treatment in terms of access to nature as well as social goods.  Some of the variables were too broad. Hence Guillermino Jasso developed a rule to measure things such as respect. In her final decision, variables such as respect were to be measure on one’s rank or status in life (Babbie, 2016).

An example of such a case involves an individual who earns $250k annually. For such an example, Jasso would group these individuals in the same category, while those who earn less or high income would be classified accordingly. This is similar to the example of measuring wealth, where it was measured annually.  From his examples, Jasso came up with a total of six explanations. Two of the explanations are as follows; “Other factors being the same, an individual will prefer to steal from another person in the same category as a group instead of doing so in another group. In case of theft, informants arise only in cross-group theft. However, they are still part of the member’s thief group.  From this explanation, Jasso concluded that stealing from a person in the same group as yours increases your wealth than if you could steal from another individual in another group.  The second conclusion from his findings was that; when there is an occurrence of theft within a comparison group, an individual from that group is likely to report that person since it has increased his or her wealth (Jasso, Törnblom & Sabbagh, 2016). Hence it has depreciated the wealth of the group as well. If a person steals outside the group members, the wealth status of the other group decreases, but his or her group is not affected. Thus there is no reason to punish the thief.

The controversial debate among sociologists questions the logic behind Jasso’s explanation.  The deductive theory applies the case study example of Guillermina Jasso. It starts with a hypothesis that provides an assumption of the known phenomena. It further examines what is known about the topic and determines whether if the explanation is logical and has empirical evidence (Jasso, Törnblom & Sabbagh, 2016).  The research study done by Jasso is deductive, in my view. This is because Jasso provided logical reasoning through his explanations of distributive justice.  Finally, he came up with a formula to test the distributive justice validity.

Other research studies have been done to prove the aspect of deductive reasoning.  Takeuchi did a research study on why college students in Hawai Abused Marijuana in the 60’s and 70’s.   The findings revealed that students smoked marijuana as a way of escaping college hardships and challenges. The research, Takeuchi, applied the knowledge of deductive theory to support students’ explanations.  In his explanation, he claimed that women are less likely to smoke than men; Asian students were also less likely to use marijuana. Finally, students who lived outside the campus were less likely to use marijuana.    Social constraints theory is one of the theories that explain the reason as to why some people abuse drugs. Women are less likely to abuse drugs than men due to social life rules that bar them from engaging in such activities due to society’s perceptions (Gottfredson & Aguinis, 2017).  For instance, in many societies, women are perceived badly when they are seen as engaging in drugs. An example of partying in clubs. Drug abuse in many societies is seen as a men’s’ habit, and hence women are not allowed by social life norms and values to engage in such activities. Asians students, on the others, are perceived to have high regard or respect for the law. Finally, students who live outside campuses, such as those living with their parents or guardians, are afraid of upsetting their guardians due to bad or upsetting behavioral standards. Hence this bars them from engaging in such drug abuse behaviors.

In conclusion, inductive theory refers to the behavioral patterns as well as predictions that are derived due to the observed patterns. A good example is a case where mike has an appointment with his dentist on a certain day, for instance, on Tuesday or Thursday.  If mike’s appointment was not on Tuesday, then it must be on Thursday.  The inductive theory is the opposite approach of deductive theory.  In inductive theory, there are several logical processes, all of them assumed or believed to be based on facts. Then they are combined to come up with a specific conclusion. In other words, the inductive theory works best when it comes to prediction or behavioral patterns.  In the case study example of drug abuse, there are patterns of drug abuse students that explain the deductive reasoning or theory approach.

References

Babbie, E. (2016). The basics of social research (7^th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage.

Gottfredson, R. K., & Aguinis, H. (2017). Leadership behaviors and follower performance: Deductive and inductive examination of theoretical rationales and underlying mechanisms. Journal of organizational behavior, 38(4), 558-591.

Jasso, G., Törnblom, K. Y., & Sabbagh, C. (2016). Distributive justice. In Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 201-218). Springer, New York, NY.