Tag Archives | Methods

Testing Models of Cognition and Action Using Response Conflict and Multinomial Processing Tree Models

Andrew Miles, Gordon Brett, Salwa Khan, and Yagana Samim

Sociological Science March 07, 2023
10.15195/v10.a4


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.
Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Andrew Miles: Department of Sociology, University of Toronto
E-mail: andrew.miles@utoronto.ca

Gordon Brett: Department of Sociology, University of Toronto
E-mail: gordon.brett@alum.utoronto.ca

Salwa Khan: Department of Sociology, University of Toronto
E-mail: slw.khan@mail.utoronto.ca

Yagana Samim: Department of Sociology, University of Toronto
E-mail: yagana.samim@mail.utoronto.ca

Acknowledgments: We wish to thank the reviewers and editors at Sociological Science for their helpful comments.

  • Citation: Miles, Andrew, Gordon Brett, Salwa Khan, and Yagana Samim. 2023. “Testing Models of Cognition and Action Using Response Conflict and Multinomial Processing Tree Models.” Sociological Science 10: 118-149.
  • Received: September 23, 2022
  • Accepted: November 22, 2022
  • Editors: Arnout van de Rijt, Werner Raub
  • DOI: 10.15195/v10.a4


0

Fast or Slow: Sociological Implications of Measuring Dual-Process Cognition

Rick Moore

Sociological Science, February 27, 2017
DOI 10.15195/v4.a9

Dual-process theories of cognition within sociology have received increasing attention from both supporters and critics. One limitation in this debate, however, is the common absence of empirical evidence to back dual-process claims. Here, I provide such evidence for dual-process cognition using measures of response latency in formal data collected in conjunction with an ethnographic study of atheists and evangelicals. I use timed responses to help make sense of evangelicals’ language that frames “religion” as negative but “Christ-following” as positive. The data suggests that despite these Christians expressing a concept of the self that rejects “religion,” deep dispositions remain associating religion as a positive entity, not a negative one. I further argue that the significance of dual-process theories to sociology is in untangling such complex webs of identity discourse by distinguishing between immediate responses primarily due to fast cognition and those that are further mediated by slower, more deliberate cognition.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Rick Moore: Department of Sociology, University of Chicago
Email: rickmoore@uchicago.edu

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank John Levi Martin, Terry McDonnell, Gabe Ignatow, and the editors of Sociological Science for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article. This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (Award number SES-1333672).

  • Citation: Moore, Rick. 2017. “Fast or Slow: Sociological Implications of Measuring Dual-Process Cognition.” Sociological Science 4: 196-223.
  • Received: October 20, 2016
  • Accepted: January 28, 2017
  • Editors: Jesper B. Sørensen, Gabriel Rossman
  • DOI: 10.15195/v4.a9


0
SiteLock