用反应冲突和多项加工树模型测试认知和行动模型

IF 2.7 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY
Andrew Miles, Gordon Brett, Salwa Khan, Yagana Samim
{"title":"用反应冲突和多项加工树模型测试认知和行动模型","authors":"Andrew Miles, Gordon Brett, Salwa Khan, Yagana Samim","doi":"10.15195/v10.a4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Dual-process perspectives have made substantial contributions to our understanding of behavior, but fundamental questions about how and when deliberate and automatic cognition shape action continue to be debated. Among these are whether automatic or deliberate cognition is ultimately in control of behavior, how often each type of cognition controls behavior in practice, and how the answers to each of these questions depends on the individual in question. To answer these questions, sociologists need methodological tools that enable them to directly test competing claims. We argue that this aim will be advanced by (a) using a particular type of data known as response conflict data and (b) analyzing those data using multinomial processing tree models. We illustrate the utility of this approach by reanalyzing three samples of data from Miles et al. (2019) on behaviors related to politics, morality, and race.","PeriodicalId":22029,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Science","volume":"42 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Testing Models of Cognition and Action Using Response Conflict and Multinomial Processing Tree Models\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Miles, Gordon Brett, Salwa Khan, Yagana Samim\",\"doi\":\"10.15195/v10.a4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Dual-process perspectives have made substantial contributions to our understanding of behavior, but fundamental questions about how and when deliberate and automatic cognition shape action continue to be debated. Among these are whether automatic or deliberate cognition is ultimately in control of behavior, how often each type of cognition controls behavior in practice, and how the answers to each of these questions depends on the individual in question. To answer these questions, sociologists need methodological tools that enable them to directly test competing claims. We argue that this aim will be advanced by (a) using a particular type of data known as response conflict data and (b) analyzing those data using multinomial processing tree models. We illustrate the utility of this approach by reanalyzing three samples of data from Miles et al. (2019) on behaviors related to politics, morality, and race.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22029,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sociological Science\",\"volume\":\"42 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sociological Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15195/v10.a4\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociological Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15195/v10.a4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

双过程视角为我们对行为的理解做出了重大贡献,但关于故意和自动认知如何以及何时影响行为的基本问题仍在争论中。这些问题包括,自动认知还是刻意认知最终控制着行为,每种类型的认知在实践中控制行为的频率,以及这些问题的答案如何取决于所讨论的个体。为了回答这些问题,社会学家需要方法论工具,使他们能够直接测试相互竞争的主张。我们认为,这一目标将通过(a)使用一种称为响应冲突数据的特定类型的数据和(b)使用多项处理树模型分析这些数据来推进。我们通过重新分析Miles等人(2019)关于政治、道德和种族相关行为的三个数据样本来说明这种方法的实用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Testing Models of Cognition and Action Using Response Conflict and Multinomial Processing Tree Models
Dual-process perspectives have made substantial contributions to our understanding of behavior, but fundamental questions about how and when deliberate and automatic cognition shape action continue to be debated. Among these are whether automatic or deliberate cognition is ultimately in control of behavior, how often each type of cognition controls behavior in practice, and how the answers to each of these questions depends on the individual in question. To answer these questions, sociologists need methodological tools that enable them to directly test competing claims. We argue that this aim will be advanced by (a) using a particular type of data known as response conflict data and (b) analyzing those data using multinomial processing tree models. We illustrate the utility of this approach by reanalyzing three samples of data from Miles et al. (2019) on behaviors related to politics, morality, and race.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Sociological Science
Sociological Science Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
2.90%
发文量
13
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Sociological Science is an open-access, online, peer-reviewed, international journal for social scientists committed to advancing a general understanding of social processes. Sociological Science welcomes original research and commentary from all subfields of sociology, and does not privilege any particular theoretical or methodological approach.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信