Paper:
AMP: AMP correlated with explicit measures only under conditions where deliberation was made difficult.
Detect Cognition:
Process dissociation techniques: Process dissociation is designed to provide separate estimates of two or more cognitive processes, such as deliberate and automatic influences, on a given behavior.
Dissociating automatic from deliberate cognition requires observing conditions in which deliberate and automatic influences work in tandem (called an inclusion condition) and conditions in which these influences have opposite implications for behavior (an exclusion condition)
========================================================================
The probability that a respondent gives response R in an inclusion condition depends on deliberate, controlled processes (C), or if control fails (1 – C), on automatically-activated reactions (A):
A is a measure of all automatic influences on the studied behavior, and not just the ones a researcher might be interested in.
As Jacoby and colleagues (1993) note, automatic influences can be divided into a baseline probability of performing a behavior (B) and automatic effects generated by the study experience (P), such as a priming effect:
Miles, Andrew, Raphaël Charron-Chénier, and Cyrus Schleifer. 2019. “Measuring Automatic Cognition: Advancing Dual-Process Research in Sociology.” American Sociological Review 0003122419832497.
"In this article, we advance dual-process research in sociology by (1) proposing criteria for measuring automatic cognition, and (2) assessing the empirical performance of two popular measures of automatic cognition developed by psychologists."----Miles(2019)
Two general types of cognition:
- Automatic Cognition: Fast, effortless, and little conscious awareness
- Deliberate Cognition: Intentional, more effortful, conscious and executes slowly
Measurements:
- Deliberate Cognition: Forced-choice Surveys and Interviews
- Automatic Cognition: Implicit Association Test(IAT) and the Affect Misattribution Procedure(AMP) (Potential Measurement Strategies)
- Traditional Measurement Problems:
- Hoc methods have not been rigorously validated.
- Facing significant methodological issues.
- Toward Better Measurement: Implicit Measure(Starting point)
Three primary criteria:
1. High scale reliability
IATs: "IATs (and variants) require respondents to rapidly sort a series of words or pictures into categories; they measure the strength of association between those categories based on the speed with which items can be correctly sorted"
AMPs: AMPs rely on priming, or activating representations in memory by exposing respondents to some type of stimuli, often a word or image (known as the prime). In AMPs, respondents are shown a series of primes and neutral images in quick succession. They are instructed to ignore the primes and rapidly rate how pleasant or unpleasant they find the neutral images.
2. Weak assumptions
IATs: IAT measures rest on a connectionist model of cognition in which attitudes, identities, and similar constructs are stored in the brain as a network of cognitive elements.
AMPs: The AMP rests on weaker assumptions. The procedure assumes the effect generated by the primes spills over into the rating of neutral images through an automatic cognitive process, but it makes no assumptions about the structure of that process.
3. Demonstrated ability to capture automatic cognition
IATs: Measuring socially sensitive topics—such as racial attitudes— reduced the correlation between IATs and explicit forced-choice items (as expected), but it also reduced the IAT’s predictive ability.
AMP: AMP correlated with explicit measures only under conditions where deliberation was made difficult.
Detect Cognition:
Process dissociation techniques: Process dissociation is designed to provide separate estimates of two or more cognitive processes, such as deliberate and automatic influences, on a given behavior.
Dissociating automatic from deliberate cognition requires observing conditions in which deliberate and automatic influences work in tandem (called an inclusion condition) and conditions in which these influences have opposite implications for behavior (an exclusion condition)
========================================================================
The probability that a respondent gives response R in an inclusion condition depends on deliberate, controlled processes (C), or if control fails (1 – C), on automatically-activated reactions (A):
P(R| Inclusion)=C+A(1-C)
In an exclusion condition, the same response only occurs if control fails and automatic processes guide behavior:
P(R|Exclusion)=A(1-C)
Therefore,
C=P(R| Inclusion)-P(R|Exclusion)
A=P(R|Exclusion)/(1-C)
A is a measure of all automatic influences on the studied behavior, and not just the ones a researcher might be interested in.
As Jacoby and colleagues (1993) note, automatic influences can be divided into a baseline probability of performing a behavior (B) and automatic effects generated by the study experience (P), such as a priming effect:
A=B+P
B component represents any influences on behavior-related automatic processing that arise from stable individual differences. (Unwanted noise, in some sense) People will have the same B but P will vary across conditions. Therefore,
A1-A2=P1-P2
An inclusion condition is created when automatic impulses favor giving the correct response; an exclusion condition is created when automatic impulses favor an incorrect response.
Results:
1. Briefly speaking, AMP is considered as a better way to measure automatic cognition, compared to FC and IATs.
2. Using FC items to measure deliberate cognition thus may only be possible if there are strong theoretical reasons to assume it does so cleanly, or when measures of automatic cognition are included alongside FC items to control for shared variance
Furthermore:
Can we introduce heuristic into the dual-process model in Culture, especially into "culture in action & thinking"?
Other resources:
Vaisey, Stephen and Lauren Valentino. 2018. “Culture and Choice: Toward Integrating Cultural Sociology with the Judgment and Decision-Making Sciences.” Poetics 68:131–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2018.03.002
Vaisey, Stephen. 2009. “Motivation and Justification: A Dual‐Process Model of Culture in Action.” American Journal of Sociology 114(6):1675–1715.https://doi.org/10.1086/597179
Lizardo, Omar et al. 2016. “What Are Dual Process Models? Implications for Cultural Analysis in Sociology.” Sociological Theory 34(4):287–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275116675900
2. Using FC items to measure deliberate cognition thus may only be possible if there are strong theoretical reasons to assume it does so cleanly, or when measures of automatic cognition are included alongside FC items to control for shared variance
Furthermore:
Can we introduce heuristic into the dual-process model in Culture, especially into "culture in action & thinking"?
Other resources:
Vaisey, Stephen and Lauren Valentino. 2018. “Culture and Choice: Toward Integrating Cultural Sociology with the Judgment and Decision-Making Sciences.” Poetics 68:131–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2018.03.002
Vaisey, Stephen. 2009. “Motivation and Justification: A Dual‐Process Model of Culture in Action.” American Journal of Sociology 114(6):1675–1715.https://doi.org/10.1086/597179
Lizardo, Omar et al. 2016. “What Are Dual Process Models? Implications for Cultural Analysis in Sociology.” Sociological Theory 34(4):287–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275116675900
Comments
Post a Comment