Dealing With Complexity Differently: From Interaction-Dominant Dynamics to Theoretical Plurality

We describe how the work of Guy Van Orden has been deeply influential in a variety of ways and focus on 2 important features: measurement and context. The centrality of these variables in understanding how psychological regularities emerge in our investigative contexts, and evolve into theories, recommends a different way of dealing with complexity. We argue that the Van Orden approach has, as one possible consequence, a plural approach to psychological phenomena. We end by describing what this means for cognitive science.     

The cognitive dynamics of negated sentence verification

We explored the influence of negation on cognitive dynamics, measured using mouse-movement trajectories, to test the classic notion that negation acts as an operator on linguistic processing. In three experiments, participants verified the truth or falsity of simple statements, and we tracked the computer-mouse trajectories of their responses. Sentences expressing these facts sometimes contained a negation. Such negated statements could be true (e.g., "elephants are not small") or false (e.g., "elephants are not large"). In the first experiment, as predicted by the classic notion of negation, we found that negation caused more discreteness in the mouse trajectory of a response. The second experiment induced a simple context for these statements, yet negation still increased discreteness in trajectories. A third experiment enhanced the pragmatic context of sentences, and the discreteness was substantially diminished, with one primary measure no longer significantly showing increased discreteness at all. Traditional linguistic theories predict rapid shifts in cognitive dynamics occur due to the nature of negation: It is an operator that reverses the truth or falsity of an interpretation. We argue that these results support both propositional and contextual accounts of negation present in the literature, suggesting that contextual factors are crucial for determining the kind of cognitive dynamics displayed. We conclude by drawing broader lessons about theories of cognition from the case of negation.     

Listeners invest in an assumed other's perspective despite cognitive cost

We explored perspective-taking behavior in a visuospatial mental rotation task that requires listeners to adopt an egocentric or “other-centric” frame of reference. In the current task, objects could be interpreted relative to the point-of-view of the listener (egocentric) or of a simulated partner (other-centric). Across three studies, we evaluated participants’ willingness to consider and act on partner-specific information, showing that a partner’s perceived ability to contribute to collaborative mutual understanding modulated participants’ perspective-taking behavior, either by increasing other-centric (Study 2) or egocentric (Study 3) responding. Moreover, we show that a large proportion of participants resolved referential ambiguity in terms of their partner’s perspective, even when it was more cognitively difficult to do so (as tracked by online movement measures), and when the presence of a social partner had to be assumed (Studies 1 and 2). In addition, participants continued to consider their partner’s perspective during trials where visual perspectives were shared. Our results show that participants will thoroughly invest in either an other-centric or egocentric mode of responding, and that perspective-taking strategies are not always dictated by minimizing processing demands, but by more potent (albeit subtle) factors in the social context.     

Liberation Psychology as the Path Toward Healing Cultural Soul Wounds

Oppression resulting in soul wounding has afflicted indigenous communities and the counseling profession. Internalized oppression has become part of oppressive practices inflicted on communities served. The authors delineate a liberation psychology that leads toward the psychological and spiritual emancipation of individual clients, communities, and the counseling profession.     

Perceptions of Sexual Orientation: A Hierarchically Restrictive Trait

Categorizing a person according to group membership (sexual orientation) attaches group stereotypes and behavioral expectations to that individual. For Study 1, students from New Mexico, United States (N?=?127) were asked to indicate the number of inconsistent behaviors it would take to change expectations about a categorized person. Study 1 revealed that sexual orientation is a hierarchically restrictive trait: for heterosexual targets, only a few inconsistent behaviors changed expectations, and for homosexual targets, many inconsistent behaviors did not change expectations. For Study 2, survey research (N?=?163) and path analyses revealed different patterns between male and female respondents for relationships between religiosity, attitudes toward homosexuals, attitudes toward sexuality, and the degree of hierarchical restrictiveness of sexual orientation.     

Multimethod study of clinical judgment

Expert and novice clinicians judged the likelihood of disease alternatives and gave thinking-aloud protocols as they evaluated simulated cases of congenital heart disease. Specific combinations of cues in the patient data were manipulated to create alternate versions of a single case so that the use of critical cues could be identified. Analyses of variance of subjects' disease judgments revealed differences between expert and novice clinicians in their use of critical cues and cue combinations. Analyses of the thinking-aloud protocols revealed that clinicians with different degrees of expertise employed different interpretations of patient data cues as well as qualitatively distinct "lines of reasoning" in reaching clinical judgments.     

Naturalized Epistemics and Conditional Reasoning

The continued predominance of SL-logic and deductive paradigms in the research on conditional-based reasoning by experimental psychologists is examined and criticized. After recounting the history and influence of the model, I note the emergence of trends in epistemology and other areas of theory that might provide a springboard for the critique of the model, and I argue that a new approach to examining reasoning with conditionals ought to be developed. I conclude that a superior approach would model such reasoning with sociolinguistic, inductive, and neurophysiological parameters, and that it would not involve any comparison of subjects' reasoning with the standard deductive rules of logic.