Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 113 references

"Conservatives Overfit, Liberals Underfit": The Social-Psychological Control of Affect and Uncertainty

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a single somatic transform—the mathematical link between felt sentiment and symbolic interpretation—is sufficient to account for the classic fairness, dissonance, and conformity biases.

desk verdict A clean formal addition to BayesAct with honest limits, but the dissonance demonstration leans on a favorable prior choice and the simulations are illustrations, not evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03106 v3 pith:MW5O6WNW submitted 2019-08-08 cs.AI cs.CY

Jesse Hoey , Neil J. MacKinnon This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.CY
keywords BayesActaffectcontroltheorysomatictransformcognitivedissonanceconformityproceduralfairnessdual-processuncertainty
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper seeks to show that one computational mechanism, the somatic transform of the Bayesian Affect Control Theory (BayesAct) model, can account for three classic cognitive biases: heightened fairness reactions under uncertainty, post-choice reevaluation in cognitive dissonance, and social conformity. The mechanism is a probabilistic translation between a low-dimensional affective (connotative) space of feelings and a high-dimensional symbolic (denotative) space of identities, objects, and actions. The authors simulate each classic experiment with this transform and reproduce the qualitative pattern of the original results, such as the dissonance simulation's shift of a prize's perceived desirability from bad to good. If this holds, fairness, dissonance, and conformity need not be explained by separate psychological mechanisms, and artificial agents using the model would naturally show human-like social reasoning under uncertainty.

What carries the argument

The central object is the somatic transform, a probabilistic map between the denotative state (what an agent believes is happening) and the connotative state (how that situation feels in a low-dimensional affective space defined by evaluation, potency, and activity). It is defined through the somatic potential $G(x,y) = c\,e^{-(y-M(x))^2/\gamma^2}$, where $M(x)$ gives the culturally shared sentiment for denotative entity $x$ and $\gamma$ controls the predictability of the environment. The transform computes posteriors over $x$ and $y$ by multiplying the priors with this potential, and it naturally shifts weight toward the connotative system as the denotative prior becomes more uncertain. This single object carries the argument: the same pair of posterior-update equations is used to generate the fairness, dissonance, and conformity results.

What would settle it

Re-run the three simulations using EPA sentiment norms collected from the exact populations and time periods of the original experiments rather than the 2015 US survey; if the predicted shifts (for instance, the dissonance posterior P'(bad) falling from 0.8 to 0.34) disappear or invert while the original behavioral effects are replicated, the somatic transform's sufficiency claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the revised BayesAct model's somatic transform is sufficient to account for cognitive biases about fairness, dissonance, and conformity. In the dissonance simulation, updating a prior that the obtained prize is bad with a connotative prior tied to the self drives the posterior probability P'(bad) from 0.8 to 0.34, reversing the item's apparent value. In the conformity simulation, sequential observations of peers choosing an obviously wrong answer push P'(wrong) to 0.67 after five peers and to 0.995 after ten. The fairness result is reproduced as a shift from denotative, decision-theoretic reasoning toward connotative, socially normative reasoning when uncertainty is made salient. The paper presents these simulations as evidence that a single affect-cognition coupling, not separate fairness, dissonance, and conformity modules, can express all three effects.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the survey-based sentiment meanings measured in one population can stand in for the meanings held by the people in the original experiments, even though the paper itself concedes this is clearly not true for the dissonance study.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fairness, dissonance, and conformity are not separate psychological mechanisms but expressions of the same uncertainty-driven tradeoff between affective and deliberative processing.
  • When denotative uncertainty rises, agents lean more heavily on connotative, socially normative reasoning; when uncertainty falls, denotative, decision-theoretic reasoning dominates.
  • Artificial agents built on BayesAct can use the somatic transform to become interpretable members of social systems, with applications to online collaboration and assistive technologies.
  • Random and value-based exploration in reinforcement learning are unified as reflections of the same uncertainty-management process, with socially normative policies emerging under higher uncertainty.
  • Individual differences in the model's parameters correspond to stable biases in the bias-variance tradeoff, a suggestion the paper connects to the political spectrum via its 'conservatives overfit, liberals underfit' framing.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The simulations use sentiment norms from a 2015 US survey, so the exact quantitative effect sizes are not yet calibrated to the original experimental populations; a natural next step would be fitting $\gamma$ and the priors directly to those datasets.
  • If sentiment norms are era- and culture-specific, the model predicts measurable group differences in the strength of these biases, a claim that could be tested by re-running the simulations with dictionaries collected from different populations.
  • The same transform suggests a design principle for artificial agents: increasing an agent's connotative weight should make it cooperate more in ambiguous social dilemmas, while lowering it should push it toward more individual, deliberative exploration.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a revised version of the Bayesian Affect Control Theory (BayesAct) in which a "somatic transform" couples a denotative (symbolic/cognitive) representation with a connotative (affective/EPA) representation through a Boltzmann potential. The authors claim that this single mechanism is sufficient to account for three classic social-psychological effects: the effect of uncertainty on fairness judgments (van den Bos, 2001), cognitive dissonance (Festinger), and conformity (Asch). The paper derives the somatic transform from a graphical model, gives closed-form posterior updates for Gaussian priors, and presents three exploratory simulations. It then discusses connections to dual-process theories, active inference, reinforcement learning exploration, and applications to online collaboration and dementia care.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would offer a parsimonious, formally explicit account of several classic biases using a single affect-cognition coupling mechanism, with potential value for affective computing and multi-agent system design. The mathematical framework in Equations 1-4 is clear and the model is concretely testable, which is a genuine strength. However, the demonstrations are qualitative, rely on hand-set parameters, and in at least one case select a favorable prior rather than the population-appropriate one. The sufficiency claim is therefore not yet supported by the evidence presented; the paper is better read as a theoretical proposal with illustrative simulations than as a validated account of the three biases.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, Figure 7] The dissonance simulation sets the connotative prior P(y) to the Georgia 2015 EPA profile for "child" (E=2.0, sigma=1.23), while the text itself notes that the actual participants in Festinger's study were teenage girls, whose E rating in the same dataset is 0.2 with sigma=1.3. The text explicitly states that "child" was selected "because it was more positive and less dispersed than teenager," which is a favorable, not neutral, choice. Since the posterior shift in P'(X=bad) from 0.8 to 0.34 is driven by the distance and dispersion of this prior, the demonstration does not establish the effect for the population on which the original experiment was run. The authors should report the result using the teenager prior and, ideally, integrate over plausible identity priors; Equation 7 only averages over sigma_y types and does not address the prior mean.
  2. [Section 4.1, Figure 6] The fairness demonstration is not actually a test of the somatic transform. The text states "Using ACT only" and employs the Indiana 2005 dataset and standard ACT deflection calculations, rather than applying Equations 3-4, which are the paper's claimed key component. The comparison to van den Bos's data is only qualitative ("these curves correspond in form"), with no quantitative fit or error measure. If the fairness result is meant to support the abstract's claim that the somatic transform is sufficient for fairness, the simulation must use that mechanism; otherwise the section should be explicitly framed as an ACT illustration and not as evidence for the new model.
  3. [Section 4.3, Equations 3-4] In the conformity simulation, the rise in P'(X=wrong) to 0.995 after 10 peers is driven primarily by repeated multiplication with the hand-set observation likelihood P(Omega_x|X)=0.85. Standard Bayesian updating of the denotative posterior would produce qualitatively similar conformity-like convergence even without any connotative coupling, so this demonstration does not isolate the contribution of the somatic potential. The authors should compare the model against a baseline with the somatic transform removed, and report sensitivity of the result to gamma, sigma_y, the prior P(X=wrong), and the observation likelihood.
  4. [Section 3.3-4, overall methodology] All three demonstrations select values for gamma, sigma_y, P(X), and the observation likelihood ad hoc, with no parameter estimation, error bars, or systematic sensitivity analysis. Because the central claim is that the model is "sufficient to account" for these biases, the authors should show that the qualitative effects persist over a range of parameter values rather than at a single hand-picked operating point. At a minimum, a sensitivity analysis for the dissonance and conformity simulations is needed to establish that the reported outcomes are not artifacts of the chosen parameters.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4] The abstract uses "demonstrate," while Section 4 is titled "Exploratory Examples" and the text repeatedly says the simulations are simplified; the phrasing should be aligned so the strength of the claim matches the evidence presented.
  2. [Section 4.3] There is a typo in the sentence about repeating the process "five five times," which should read "five times."
  3. [Section 4.2, Equation 7] In Equation 7 the left-hand side is written P(X=bad), but the text is computing an integrated posterior; the notation should be P'(X=bad) or otherwise clearly distinguish the posterior from the prior P(X=bad) used earlier.
  4. [Section 4.1, Figure 6] The scaling of the ACT distances to the 1-7 range in Figure 6(a) is not described; please provide the exact scaling formula so the reader can compare the simulation and experimental axes.
  5. [Section 4.2] The Festinger dissonance study is invoked without a specific reference; please cite the original study (or the specific variant with teenage girls) so the population claims can be checked.
  6. [Throughout] There are several typos, including "thefore lessvalid" in Section 2.1, "splotlight" in Section 2.3, and "interacti" in Section 5.3; a careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the dissonance demonstration is forced by selecting the favorable 'child' EPA prior, which the paper admits is unrepresentative of Festinger's participants.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2 (Cognitive Dissonance), Figure 7, footnote 11; Eqs. 3-4]
    "We selected child for this demonstrative example because it was more positive and less dispersed than teenager (EPA:{0.2, 0.7, 2.0}) with standard deviations of (EPA:{1.3, 1.5, 1.3})"

    Equation 4 gives P'(x) as the prior P(x) weighted by an expectation of the somatic potential under P(y), so the reported shift from P(X=bad)=0.8 to P'(X=bad)=0.34 is a mathematical consequence of the chosen prior mean and variance of Y. The paper chooses the 'child' identity (E=2.0, sigma=1.23) explicitly because it is more positive and less dispersed than the age-appropriate 'teenager' prior (E=0.2), and concedes that the Georgia norms are 'clearly not' representative of the Festinger population. The demonstration therefore reduces by construction to the strength of a favorable identity prior; using the unrepresentative-but-favorable prior is what produces the advertised dissonance effect, so the 'prediction' is not an independent test of the model.

full rationale

The fairness simulation (Section 4.1) is a qualitative ACT calculation using external EPA norms and is not circular: it simply shows that a connotative 'anxious student' identity yields a larger fairness gap, matching van den Bos's pattern. The conformity simulation (Section 4.3) is ordinary sequential Bayesian updating with an observation likelihood of 0.85; the posterior rise to 0.995 is forced by the likelihood, but that is a transparent model mechanism rather than a fitted parameter. The self-citations to BayesAct (Hoey et al., 2016; Schroder et al., 2016) are not load-bearing for the three demonstrations, because the somatic transform and Equations 3-4 are introduced in this paper and the simulations are computed directly from them. The one genuine circularity is in the dissonance example: the paper's own footnote selects the 'child' EPA prior because it is favorable, and the manuscript's own text admits that the Georgia dataset is not representative of the dissonance experiment's population. Since the posterior shift is just the prior's pull through Equation 4, this particular 'account' of cognitive dissonance is an input choice presented as a prediction, giving partial circularity rather than a fully independent demonstration.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central demonstrations rest on several hand-set quantities: the somatic potential width gamma, the connotative prior variance sigma_y, the denotative priors P(X), and the observation likelihood in the conformity update. These are not estimated from the target behavioral data. The model also assumes the ACT EPA dictionary and population norms transfer across time and populations, a premise the paper concedes is 'clearly not' valid for the dissonance example. The Boltzmann form of the somatic potential (Eq. 1) is an ad hoc modeling choice.

free parameters (4)
  • gamma = 0.3 (most examples; varied in Fig. 4)
    Width of the somatic potential in Eq. 1; controls the coupling strength between denotative and connotative states. Chosen by hand for each simulation.
  • sigma_y = 2.0, 1.23, 0.5, 3.5 (per example)
    Variance of the Gaussian prior P(y); controls how much the connotative prior dominates. Hand-selected among values.
  • P(X) denotative prior = nurse=0.7; bad=0.8; wrong=0.1
    Prior over the denotative state; set to produce the intended narrative in each demonstration.
  • Observation likelihood P(Omega_x|X) = 0.85
    Probability that a group member selects the right answer given the answer is right; used for repeated updating in the conformity simulation.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Bayes' rule and normalization of probability distributions
    Used implicitly in Equations 2 through 4.
  • domain assumption EPA space is a valid cross-cultural representation of affective meaning
    Adopted from ACT and Osgood; foundational for the connotative space.
  • ad hoc to paper Somatic potential is a Boltzmann distribution G(x,y)=c exp(-(y-M(x))^2/gamma^2)
    Equation 1; this functional form is a modeling choice, not derived from data or theory.
  • domain assumption Prior independence P(X,Y)=P(X)P(Y)
    Footnote 6 in Section 3.3; necessary for the factored posterior updates.
  • ad hoc to paper ACT dictionary norms from Georgia 2015 transfer to the experimental populations
    Used for all simulations; explicitly conceded as 'clearly not' valid in Section 4.2.
  • ad hoc to paper Gamma is a free parameter set by the agent
    Section 3.3: 'Choosing a value for gamma is a learning choice to be made by an agent.'
invented entities (1)
  • Somatic potential / somatic transform
    purpose: Mathematical link between denotative state X and connotative state Y, enabling belief revision in both directions (Eqs. 3-4).
    A new modeling construct with no external experimental handle; its parameters are free and its predictions are not independently testable without fixing gamma and priors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of "Conservatives Overfit, Liberals Underfit": The Social-Psychological Control of Affect and Uncertainty." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MW5O6WNW

@misc{pith2026190803106,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: "Conservatives Overfit, Liberals Underfit": The Social-Psychological Control of Affect and Uncertainty},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MW5O6WNW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03106}
}
read the original abstract

The presence of artificial agents in human social networks is growing. From chatbots to robots, human experience in the developed world is moving towards a socio-technical system in which agents can be technological or biological, with increasingly blurred distinctions between. Given that emotion is a key element of human interaction, enabling artificial agents with the ability to reason about affect is a key stepping stone towards a future in which technological agents and humans can work together. This paper presents work on building intelligent computational agents that integrate both emotion and cognition. These agents are grounded in the well-established social-psychological Bayesian Affect Control Theory (BayesAct). The core idea of BayesAct is that humans are motivated in their social interactions by affective alignment: they strive for their social experiences to be coherent at a deep, emotional level with their sense of identity and general world views as constructed through culturally shared symbols. This affective alignment creates cohesive bonds between group members, and is instrumental for collaborations to solidify as relational group commitments. BayesAct agents are motivated in their social interactions by a combination of affective alignment and decision theoretic reasoning, trading the two off as a function of the uncertainty or unpredictability of the situation. This paper provides a high-level view of dual process theories and advances BayesAct as a plausible, computationally tractable model based in social-psychological theory. We introduce a revised BayesAct model that more deeply integrates social-psychological theorising, and we demonstrate a component of the model as being sufficient to account for cognitive biases about fairness, dissonance and conformity. We show how the model can unify different exploration strategies in reinforcement learning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03106 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Belief network for BayesAct at a high level of abstraction showing denotative x and connotative y, observations ωx, emotions ωe, and actions both denotative a, and connotative f. Two somatic transforms link state and action, respectively, but can be considered the same. Primed variables are post-event, and the network is dynamically unrolled through time. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Somatic Potential as a belief network (a) undirected, (b) equivalent directed graph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Effects of the Somatic Transform on the marginals over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Posterior over Y with varying γ. As γ decreases, the posterior over Y is more focussed on the priors over x. S(P 0 ) denotes the entropy of P 0 (X). P 0 (nurse) denotes the posterior probability of X being nurse: P 0 (X = nurse). µy = 3.0, P(x) = 0.7. As the world beco…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The top (blue) and bottom (green) lines in the legend show a prior state with a less [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) ACT simulations of conditions, showing the scaled average of the distance from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulation of a cognitive dissonance. The posteriors over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Simulation of conformity. The posteriors over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Unpacking the habitus: Meaning making across lifestyles

    Jens Ambrasat, Christian von Scheve, Gesche Schauenburg, Markus Conrad, and Tobias Schröder. Unpacking the habitus: Meaning making across lifestyles. Sociological Forum, 31 0 (4): 0 994--1017, 2016. doi:10.1111/socf.12293. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/socf.12293

    work page doi:10.1111/socf.12293 2016

  2. [2]

    Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments

    Solomon E Asch and Harold Guetzkow. Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. Documents of gestalt psychology, pages 222--236, 1951

    1951

  3. [3]

    The moral machine experiment

    Edmond Awad, Sohan Dsouza, Richard Kim, Jonathan Schulz, Joseph Henrich, Azim Shariff, Jean-François Bonnefon, and Iyad Rahwan. The moral machine experiment. Nature, 563: 0 59--64, october 2018

    2018

  4. [4]

    Social Interaction Systems: Theory and Measurement

    Robert Freed Bales. Social Interaction Systems: Theory and Measurement. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, 1999

    1999

  5. [5]

    The theory of constructed emotion: An active inference account of interoception and categorization

    Lisa Feldman Barrett. The theory of constructed emotion: An active inference account of interoception and categorization. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12 0 (1): 0 1--23, 2017

    2017

  6. [6]

    Large-scale brain networks in affective and social neuroscience: Towards an integrative functional architecture of the brain

    Lisa Feldman Barrett and Ajay Satpute. Large-scale brain networks in affective and social neuroscience: Towards an integrative functional architecture of the brain. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 23: 0 361--372, 2013

    2013

  7. [7]

    Berger and Thomas Luckmann

    Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality. Doubleday, 1966

    1966

  8. [8]

    On the notions of causality and complementarity

    Neils Bohr. On the notions of causality and complementarity. Science, 111: 0 51--54, 1950

    1950

Show all 113 references
  1. [9]

    The Logic of Practice

    Pierre Bourdieu. The Logic of Practice. Stanford University Press, 1990

    1990

  2. [10]

    Brafman and Moshe Tennenholtz

    Ronen I. Brafman and Moshe Tennenholtz. R-max – a general polynomial time algorithm for near-optimal reinforcement learning. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3: 0 213--231, 2002

    2002

  3. [11]

    Joost Broekens, Elmer Jacobs, and Catholijn M. Jonker. A reinforcement learning model of joy, distress, hope and fear. Connection Science, 27: 0 215–233, 2015

    2015

  4. [12]

    What's inside your head once you've figured out what you head's inside of

    Jelle Bruineberg and Erik Rietveld. What's inside your head once you've figured out what you head's inside of. Ecological Psychology, 31 0 (3): 0 198--217, 2019. doi:10.1080/10407413.2019.1615204

    2019

  5. [13]

    Cacioppo, Gary G

    John T. Cacioppo, Gary G. Berntson, Tyler S. Lorig, Catherine J. Norris, Edith Rickett, and Howard Nusbaum. Just because you're imaging the brain doesn't mean you can stop using your head: A primer and set of first principles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85: ...

    2003

  6. [14]

    Bodily Changes in Pain, Hunger, Fear, and Rage

    Walter Cannon. Bodily Changes in Pain, Hunger, Fear, and Rage. Ronald, New York, 2nd edition, 1929

    1929

  7. [15]

    Valerie Capraro and David G. Rand. Do the right thing: Preferences for moral behavior, rather than equity or efficiency per se, drive human prosociality. Judgment and Decision Making, 13 0 (1): 0 99--111, January 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology

    Shelly Chaiken and Yaacov Trope. Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. Guildford, New York, 1999

    1999

  9. [17]

    Facing up to the problem of consciousness

    David Chalmers. Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2: 0 200--219, 1995

    1995

  10. [18]

    Barto, and Satinder P

    Nuttapong Chentanez, Andrew G. Barto, and Satinder P. Singh. Intrinsically motivated reinforcement learning. In L.K. Saul, Y. Weiss, and L. Bottou, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 17, pages 1281--1288. MIT Press, 2005

    2005

  11. [19]

    Clore and Andrew Ortony

    Gerald L. Clore and Andrew Ortony. Cognition in emotion: Always, sometimes, or never? In L. Nadel, R. Kane, and G. L. Ahern, editors, The Cognitive Neuroscience of Emotion, pages 24--61. Oxford University Press, New York, 2000

    2000

  12. [20]

    Function of the thalamic reticular complex: the searchlight hypothesis

    Francis Crick. Function of the thalamic reticular complex: the searchlight hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 81: 0 4568--4590, 1984

    1984

  13. [21]

    Antonio R. Damasio. Descartes' error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. Putnam's sons, 1994

    1994

  14. [22]

    Davidson

    Richard J. Davidson. Seven sins in the study of emotion: Correctives from affective neuroscience. Brain and Cognition, 52: 0 129–132, 2003

    2003

  15. [23]

    The helmholtz machine

    Peter Dayan, Geoffrey E Hinton, Radford M Neal, and Richard S Zemel. The helmholtz machine. Neural computation, 7 0 (5): 0 889--904, 1995

    1995

  16. [24]

    R.I.M. Dunbar. Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates. Journal of Human Evolution, 22 0 (6): 0 469 -- 493, 1992. ISSN 0047-2484. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0047-2484(92)90081-J. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/004724849290081J

    1992

  17. [25]

    Affect is a form of cognition: A neurobiological analysis

    Seth Duncan and Lisa Feldman Barrett. Affect is a form of cognition: A neurobiological analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 21: 0 1184--1211, 2007

    2007

  18. [26]

    The Division of Labor in Society

    Emile Durkheim. The Division of Labor in Society. Free Press, 2014 (1893)

    2014

  19. [27]

    Magy Seif El-Nasr, John Yen, and Thomas R. Ioerger. FLAME - fuzzy logic adaptive model of emotions. Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 3: 0 219--257, 2000

    2000

  20. [28]

    Ernst Fehr and Klaus M. Schmidt. A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114 0 (3): 0 817--868, 1999. URL doi:10.1162/003355399556151

    1999 doi

  21. [29]

    Resolving uncertainty in a social world

    Oriel FeldmanHall and Amitai Shenhav. Resolving uncertainty in a social world. Nature Human Behaviour, In Press, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Joseph P. Forgas. Affect and cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3: 0 94--101, 2008

    2008

  23. [31]

    Adams, Alexandra K\" o nig, and Jesse Hoey

    Linda Francis, Richard E. Adams, Alexandra K\" o nig, and Jesse Hoey. Identity and the self in elderly adults with A lzheimer's disease. In Jane E. Stets and Richard T. Serpe, editors, Identities in Everyday Life, chapter 18, pages 381--402. Oxford University Press, 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    David D. Franks. Alternatives to C ollins' use of emotion in the theory of ritualistic chains. Symbolic Interaction, 12: 0 97--101, 1989

    1989

  25. [33]

    David D. Franks. The neuroscience of emotions. In J. E. Stets and J. H. Turner, editors, Handbook of the Sociology of Emotions, pages 39--62. Springer, New York, 2006

    2006

  26. [34]

    The structure of deference: Modeling occupational status using affect control theory

    Robert Freeland and Jesse Hoey. The structure of deference: Modeling occupational status using affect control theory. American Sociological Review, 83 0 (2), April 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    Freeman and Nalini Ambady

    Jonathan B. Freeman and Nalini Ambady. A dynamic interactive theory of person construal. Psychological Review, 118 0 (2): 0 247--279, 2011. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022327

    2011 doi

  28. [36]

    The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11 0 ((2)): 0 127--138, 2010

    Karl Friston. The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11 0 ((2)): 0 127--138, 2010

    2010

  29. [37]

    Samothrakis, and R

    Karl Friston, S. Samothrakis, and R. Montague. Active inference and agency: optimal control without cost functions. Biological Cybernetics, 106 0 (8-9): 0 523--541, 2012

    2012

  30. [38]

    Glaze, Alexandre L.S

    Christopher M. Glaze, Alexandre L.S. Filipowicz, Joseph W. Kable, Vijay Balasubramanian, and Joshua I. Gold. A bias-variance trade-off governs individual differences in on-line learning in an unpredictable environment. Nature Human Behaviour, 2: 0 213--224, March 2018

    2018

  31. [39]

    Gomez Esteban and D

    P. Gomez Esteban and D. Rios Insua . An affective model for a non-expensive utility-based decision agent. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, pages 1--1, 2017. ISSN 1949-3045. doi:10.1109/TAFFC.2017.2737979

    2017

  32. [40]

    James J. Gross. The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2 0 (3): 0 271--299, 1998

    1998

  33. [41]

    David R. Heise. Expressive Order: Confirming Sentiments in Social Actions. Springer, 2007

    2007

  34. [42]

    David R. Heise. Modeling interactions in small groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 76: 0 52--72, 2013

    2013

  35. [43]

    Hedging your bets: and active inference formulation of valence and arousal

    Casper Hesp. Hedging your bets: and active inference formulation of valence and arousal. Unpublished reserach project, 2018

    2018

  36. [44]

    Bayesian affect control theory of self

    Jesse Hoey and Tobias Schr\" o der. Bayesian affect control theory of self. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 529--536, 2015

    2015

  37. [45]

    Affect control processes: Intelligent affective interaction using a partially observable M arkov decision process

    Jesse Hoey, Tobias Schr\" o der, and Areej Alhothali. Affect control processes: Intelligent affective interaction using a partially observable M arkov decision process. Artificial Intelligence, 230: 0 134--172, January 2016

    2016

  38. [46]

    Artificial intelligence and social simulation: Studying group dynamics on a massive scale

    Jesse Hoey, Tobias Schr \"o der, Jonathan Morgan, Kimberly B Rogers, Deepak Rishi, and Meiyappan Nagappan. Artificial intelligence and social simulation: Studying group dynamics on a massive scale. Small Group Research, 49 0 (6): 0 647--683, 2018

    2018

  39. [47]

    Dilemmas for superrational thinkers, leading up to a luring lottery

    Douglas Hofstadter. Dilemmas for superrational thinkers, leading up to a luring lottery. Scientific American, 248 0 (6), June 1983

    1983

  40. [48]

    Bovenkamp

    Eric Hogewoning, Joost Broekens, Jeroen Eggermont, and Ernst G.P. Bovenkamp. Strategies for affect-controlled action-selection in soar-rl. In J. Mira and J.R. \` A lvarez, editors, IWINAC, volume 4528 Part II of LNCS, pages 501--510, 2007

    2007

  41. [49]

    Huntsinger, Linda M

    Jeffrey R. Huntsinger, Linda M. Isbell, and Gerald L. Clore. The affective control of thought: Malleable, not fixed. Psychological Review, 121 0 (4): 0 600--618, 2014

    2014

  42. [50]

    Principles of Psychology

    William James. Principles of Psychology. Holt, New York, 1890

  43. [51]

    Leibo, and Nando De Freitas

    Natasha Jaques, Angeliki Lazaridou, Edward Hughes, Caglar Gulcehre, Pedro Ortega, Dj Strouse, Joel Z. Leibo, and Nando De Freitas. Social influence as intrinsic motivation for multi-agent deep reinforcement learning. In Kamalika Chaudhuri and Ruslan Salakhutdinov, editors, Pro...

    2019

  44. [52]

    Emotional valence and the free-energy principle

    Mateus Joffily and Giorgio Coricelli. Emotional valence and the free-energy principle. PLoS Computational Biology , 9 0 (6): 0 e1003094, 2013

    2013

  45. [53]

    Kenneth Joseph and Jonathan H. Morgan. Identity paper. unpublished, 2019

    2019

  46. [54]

    Thinking, Fast and Slow

    Daniel Kahneman. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Doubleday, 2011

    2011

  47. [55]

    Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree

    Daniel Kahneman and Gary Klein. Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree. American Psychologist, 64 0 (6): 0 515--526, September 2009

    2009

  48. [56]

    Bandit based monte-carlo planning

    Levente Kocsis and Csaba Szepesv\' a ri. Bandit based monte-carlo planning. In Proceedings of European Conference on Machine Learning, 2006

    2006

  49. [57]

    Social dilemmas: the anatomy of cooperation

    Peter Kollock. Social dilemmas: the anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology, 24: 0 183--214, 1998

    1998

  50. [58]

    Francis, Jyoti Joshi, Julie M

    Alexandra K\" o nig, Linda E. Francis, Jyoti Joshi, Julie M. Robillard, and Jesse Hoey. Qualitative study of affective identities in dementia patients for the design of cognitive assistive technologies. Journal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineering, 4, 2017

    2017

  51. [59]

    Richard D. Lane. Neural correlates of conscious emotional experience. In Richard D. Lane and Lynn Nadel, editors, Cognitive Neuroscience of Emotion, chapter 15, pages 345--370. Oxford University Press, 2000

    2000

  52. [60]

    Lange and William James

    Carl G. Lange and William James. The Emotions. Hafner, New York, 1922/1967

    1922

  53. [61]

    Lawler, Shane R

    Edward J. Lawler, Shane R. Thye, and Jeongkoo Yoon. Social Commitments in a Depersonalized World. Russell Sage Foundation, 2009

    2009

  54. [62]

    R.S. Lazarus. On the primacy of cognition. American Psychologist, 39: 0 124--129, 1984

    1984

  55. [63]

    The emotional brain: the mysterious underpinnings of emotional life

    Joseph LeDoux. The emotional brain: the mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. Simon and Schuster, New York, 1996

    1996

  56. [64]

    LeDoux and Richard Brown

    Joseph E. LeDoux and Richard Brown. A higher-order theory of emotional consciousness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114: 0 E2016--E2025, 2017

    2017

  57. [65]

    Li, Jeremy M

    Linda C. Li, Jeremy M. Grimshaw, Camilla Nielsen, Maria Judd, Peter C. Coyte, and Ian D. Graham. Evolution of wenger's concept of community of practice. Implementation Science, 4 0 (1): 0 11, Mar 2009. ISSN 1748-5908. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-11. URL https://doi.org/10.1186/174...

    2009 doi

  58. [66]

    Skills, toolkits, context and institutions: Clarifying the relationship between different approaches to cognition in cultural sociology

    Omar Lizardo and Michael Strand. Skills, toolkits, context and institutions: Clarifying the relationship between different approaches to cognition in cultural sociology. Poetics, 38: 0 204--227, 2010

    2010

  59. [67]

    Loewenstein and J.S

    G. Loewenstein and J.S. Lerner. The role of affect in decision making. In R.J. Davidson, K.R. Sherer, and H.H. Goldsmith, editors, Handbook of Affective Sciences, page 619–642. Oxford Univ. Press, 2003

    2003

  60. [68]

    N. J. MacKinnon. Symbolic Interactionism as Affect Control. State University of New York Press, Albany, 1994

    1994

  61. [69]

    MacKinnon and David R

    Neil J. MacKinnon and David R. Heise. Self, identity and social institutions. Palgrave and Macmillan, New York, NY, 2010

    2010

  62. [70]

    Marinier III and John E

    Robert P. Marinier III and John E. Laird. Emotion-driven reinforcement learning. In Proc. of 30th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, pages 115--120, Washington, D.C., 2008

    2008

  63. [71]

    Social Structures

    John Levi Martin. Social Structures. Princeton University Press, 2009

    2009

  64. [72]

    Life's a beach, but you're an ant, and other unwanted news for the sociology of culture

    John Levi Martin. Life's a beach, but you're an ant, and other unwanted news for the sociology of culture. Poetics, 38: 0 228--243, 2010

    2010

  65. [73]

    Peers at work

    Alexandre Mas and Enrico Moretti. Peers at work. American Economic Review, 99 0 (1): 0 112--145, 2009

    2009

  66. [74]

    Reward functions for accelerated learning

    Maja J Mataric. Reward functions for accelerated learning. In Machine Learning Proceedings 1994, pages 181--189. Elsevier, 1994

    1994

  67. [75]

    The bayesian stance: Equations for 'as-if' sensorimotor agency

    Simon McGregor. The bayesian stance: Equations for 'as-if' sensorimotor agency. Adaptive Behavior, 25 0 (2): 0 72--82, 2017

    2017

  68. [76]

    Moerland, Joost Broekens, and Catholijn M

    Thomas M. Moerland, Joost Broekens, and Catholijn M. Jonker. Emotion in reinforcement learning agents and robots: A survey. Machine Learning, 107 0 (2): 0 443--480, 2017

    2017

  69. [77]

    Douglas G. Mook. Motivation: The Organization of Action. Norton, New York, 1987

    1987

  70. [78]

    Dolan, and Karl J

    Michael Moutoussis, Pasco Fearon, Wael El-Deredy, Raymond J. Dolan, and Karl J. Friston. Bayesian inferences about the self (and others): a review. Consciousness and Cognition, 25: 0 67--76, 2014 a

    2014

  71. [79]

    Dolan, and Karl J

    Michael Moutoussis, Nelson J.Trujillo-Barreto, Wael El-Deredy, Raymond J. Dolan, and Karl J. Friston. A formal model of interpersonal inference. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8 0 (160), 2014 b

    2014

  72. [80]

    M. A. Nowak. Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science, 314: 0 1560–1563, 2006

    2006

  73. [81]

    Ortony, G.L

    A. Ortony, G.L. Clore, and A. Collins. The Cognitive Structure of Emotions. Cambridge University Press, 1988

    1988

  74. [82]

    Ortony, D

    A. Ortony, D. Norman, and W. Revelle. Affect and proto-affect in effective functioning. In J. Fellous and M. Arbib, editors, Who needs emotions: The brain meets the machine, pages 173--202. Oxford University Press, 2005

    2005

  75. [83]

    Charles E. Osgood. On the whys and wherefores of epa. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12: 0 194--199, 1969

    1969

  76. [84]

    Osgood, G

    Charles E. Osgood, G. J. Suci, and Percy H. Tannenbaum. The Measurement of Meaning. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1957

    1957

  77. [85]

    Osgood, William H

    Charles E. Osgood, William H. May, and Murray S. Miron. Cross-Cultural Universals of Affective Meaning. University of Illinois Press, 1975

    1975

  78. [86]

    On the relationship between emotion and cognition

    Luiz Pessoa. On the relationship between emotion and cognition. Nature Review Neuroscience, 9: 0 148--158, 2008

    2008

  79. [87]

    Understanding emotion with brain networks

    Luiz Pessoa. Understanding emotion with brain networks. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 19: 0 19–25, 2018

    2018

  80. [88]

    Understanding patient preference for physician attire: a cross-sectional observational study of 10 academic medical centres in the usa

    Christopher M Petrilli, Sanjay Saint, Joseph J Jennings, Andrew Caruso, Latoya Kuhn, Ashley Snyder, and Vineet Chopra. Understanding patient preference for physician attire: a cross-sectional observational study of 10 academic medical centres in the usa. BMJ Open, 8 0 (5), 201...

    2018 doi

  81. [89]

    The Emotions

    Robert Plutchik. The Emotions. University Press of America, 1980

    1980

  82. [90]

    A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation

    Matthew Rabin. A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. The American Economic Review, 83 0 (5): 0 1281--1302, 1993

    1993

  83. [91]

    A tale of two densities: active inference is enactive inference

    Maxwell JD Ramstead, Michael D Kirchhoff, and Karl J Friston. A tale of two densities: active inference is enactive inference. Adaptive Behavior, 0 0 (0): 0 1--15, 2019. doi:10.1177/1059712319862774

    2019 doi

  84. [92]

    Dynamic social networks promote cooperation in experiments with humans

    DG Rand, S Arbesman, and NA Christakis. Dynamic social networks promote cooperation in experiments with humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 108 0 (48): 0 19193–19198, 2011

    2011

  85. [93]

    Read Montague, and Peter Dayan

    Debajyoti Ray, Brooks King-Casas, P. Read Montague, and Peter Dayan. Bayesian model of behaviour in economic games. In Proceedings of Neural Information Processing Systems, 2008

    2008

  86. [94]

    Robillard and Jesse Hoey

    Julie M. Robillard and Jesse Hoey. Emotion and motivation in cognitive assistive technologies for dementia. Computer, 51 0 (3), March 2018

    2018

  87. [95]

    Tobias Schr\" o der, Jesse Hoey, and Kimberly B. Rogers. Modeling dynamic identities and uncertainty in social interactions: Bayesian affect control theory. American Sociological Review, 81 0 (4), 2016

    2016

  88. [96]

    Melo, and Ana Paiva

    Pablo Sequeira, Francisco S. Melo, and Ana Paiva. Learning by appraising: an emotion-based approach to intrinsic reward design. Adaptive Behaviour, 22 0 (5): 0 330--349, 2014

    2014

  89. [97]

    Melo, Rui Prada, and Ana Paiva

    Pedro Sequeira, Francisco S. Melo, Rui Prada, and Ana Paiva. Emerging social awareness: Exploring intrinsic motivation in multiagent learning. In Proceeings of the 1st international joint conference on development and learning in epigenetic robotics, pages 1--6, 2011

    2011

  90. [98]

    Shank and Rohan Lulham

    Daniel B. Shank and Rohan Lulham. Products as affective modifiers of identities. Sociological Perspectives, 2016

    2016

  91. [99]

    Herbert A. Simon. Motivational and emotional controls of cognition. Psychological Review, 74: 0 29--39, 1967

    1967

  92. [100]

    Killgore, and Richard D

    Ryan Smith, William D.S. Killgore, and Richard D. Lane. The structure of emotional experience and its relation to trait emotional awareness: A theoretical review. Emotion, 18 0 (5): 0 670--692, 2018

    2018

  93. [101]

    Ryan Smith, Thomas Parr, and Karl J. Friston. Simulating emotions: An active inference model of emotional state inference and emotion concept learning. bioRxiv, 2019. doi:10.1101/640813. URL https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2019/05/21/640813

    2019 doi

  94. [102]

    Stanovich and Richard F

    Keith E. Stanovich and Richard F. West. Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23: 0 645--726, 2000

    2000

  95. [103]

    Stephenson

    W. Stephenson. William J ames, N iels B ohr, and complementarity: I—concepts. The Psychological Record, 36: 0 519--527, 1986 a

    1986

  96. [104]

    Stephenson

    W. Stephenson. William J ames, N iels B ohr, and complementarity: Ii—pragmatics of a thought. The Psychological Record, 36: 0 529--543, 1986 b

    1986

  97. [105]

    Justin Storbeck and Gerald L. Clore. On the interdependence of cognition and affect. Cognition and Emotion, 21 0 (6): 0 1212--1237, 2007

    2007

  98. [106]

    J. Tsay, L. Dabbish, and J. Herbsleb. Influence of social and technical factors for evaluating contribution in github. In Proc. 36th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 356--366, 2014

    2014

  99. [107]

    Johnathan H. Turner. The evolutionary biology and sociology of social order. In Edward J. Lawler, Shane R. Thye, and Jeongkoo Yoon, editors, Order on the Edge of Chaos, chapter 2, pages 18--42. Cambridge University Press, 2016

    2016

  100. [108]

    Jonathan H. Turner. The sociology of emotions: Basic theoretical arguments. Emotion Review, 1: 0 340--354, 2009

    2009

  101. [109]

    Uncertainty management: The influence of uncertainty salience on reactions to perceived procedural fairness

    Kees van den Bos. Uncertainty management: The influence of uncertainty salience on reactions to perceived procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 0 (6): 0 931--941, 2001

    2001

  102. [110]

    Tolerance to ambiguous uncertainty predicts prosocial behaviour

    Marc Llu\' i s Vives and Oriel FeldmanHall. Tolerance to ambiguous uncertainty predicts prosocial behaviour. Nature communications, 9 0 (2156), 2018

    2018

  103. [111]

    R.B. Zajonc. Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35: 0 151--175, 1980

    1980

  104. [112]

    R.B. Zajonc. On the primacy of affect. American Psychologist, 39: 0 117--123, 1984

    1984

  105. [113]

    Emotion and action

    Jing Zhu and Paul Thagard. Emotion and action. Philosophical Psychology, 15 0 (1): 0 19--36, 2002

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.