Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T08:11:05.925Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conviction Narrative Theory gains from a richer formal model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2023

Leigh Caldwell Open the ORCID record for Leigh Caldwell [Opens in a new window]
Leigh Caldwell*
Affiliation:
First Floor, Sackville House, 143-149 Fenchurch St, London EC3M 6BL, UK. leigh@irrationalagency.com www.leighcaldwell.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conviction Narrative Theory (CNT) is a convincing descriptive theory, and Johnson et al.'s formal model is a welcome contribution to building more precise, testable hypotheses. However, some extensions to the proposed model would make it better defined and more powerful. The suggested extensions enable the model to go beyond CNT, predicting choice outcomes and explaining affective phenomena.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e86
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ainslie, G. (2017). De Gustibus Disputare: Hyperbolic delay discounting integrates five approaches to impulsive choice. Journal of Economic Methodology, 24(2), 166–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berns, G. S., Laibson, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2007). Intertemporal choice – toward an integrative framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(11), 482–488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blue, M., Bush, B., & Puckett, J. (2002). Unified approach to fuzzy graph problems. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 125(3), 355–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyer, P. (2003). Religious thought and behaviour as by-products of brain function. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 119–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruner, J. (1985). Chapter VI: Narrative and paradigmatic modes of thought. Teachers College Record, 86(6), 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldwell, L. (2018a). Reinforcement learning made me irrational [Conference presentation]. TIBER 2018, Tilburg, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Caldwell, L. (2018b). Inferring heuristics from complex causal models [Conference presentation]. International Conference: Heuristics in Organisations and Society, Herbert Simon Society, Turin, Italy.Google Scholar
Caldwell, L., & Seear, L. (2019). System 3: Measuring the consumer's imagination. ESOMAR Congress 2019.Google Scholar
De Beaugrande, R., & Colby, B. N. (1979). Narrative models of action and interaction. Cognitive Science, 3(1), 43–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eliaz, K., & Spiegler, R. (2020). A model of competing narratives. American Economic Review, 110(12), 3786–3816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kóczy, L. (1992). Fuzzy graphs in the evaluation and optimization of networks. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 46(3), 307–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Momennejad, I., Otto, A. R., Daw, N. D., & Norman, K. A. (2018). Offline replay supports planning in human reinforcement learning. elife, 7, e32548.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parunak, H. V. D. (2022). Model mechanisms and behavioral attractors. In Social Simulation Conference (SSC2022), pages (under review), University of Milan, Milan, Italy.Google Scholar
Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(2), 242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pham, M. T. (1998). Representativeness, relevance, and the use of feelings in decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(2), 144–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polichak, J. W., & Gerrig, R. J. (2002). Get up and win! Participatory responses to narratives. In Green, M. C., Strange, J. J., & Brock, T. C. (Eds.), Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations (pp. 71–95). Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sarbin, T. R. (1986). Narrative psychology: The storied nature of human conduct. Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Schelling, T. C. (1987). The mind as a consuming organ. In Elster, J. (Ed.), The Multiple Self (pp. 177–196). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schultz, W., Dayan, P., & Montague, P. R. (1997). A neural substrate of prediction and reward. Science, 275(5306), 1593–1599.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shiller, R. J. (2017). Narrative economics. American Economic Review, 107(4), 967–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sloman, S. A., & Lagnado, D. (2015). Causality in thought. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 223–247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tuckett, D., & Nikolic, M. (2017). The role of conviction and narrative in decision-making under radical uncertainty. Theory & Psychology, 27(4), 501–523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yeh, R. T., & Bang, S. Y. (1975). Fuzzy relations, fuzzy graphs, and their applications to clustering analysis. In Fuzzy sets and their applications to cognitive and decision processes (pp. 125–149). Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zadeh, L. A. (1999). Fuzzy logic and the calculi of fuzzy rules, fuzzy graphs, and fuzzy probabilities. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 37(11–12), 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar