Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T14:23:48.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

24 - Computational Models in Personality and Social Psychology

from Part IV - Computational Modeling in Various Cognitive Fields

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2023

By
Stephen J. Read  and
Brian M. Monroe
Edited by
Ron Sun
Ron Sun
Affiliation:
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, New York
Get access

Summary

This is a relatively comprehensive review of computational modeling work in social psychology and personality psychology, from the beginning of computer modeling in this area in the early sixties, shortly after the founding of artificial intelligence, to the current day.Among the major topics covered are social perception, group perception and stereotyping, attitudes and attitude change, social influence, group behavior, such as group formation and gossip, human mating strategies, culture, the self, and personality. The major modeling techniques used in this area are connectionist models and multi-agent systems.Occasionally researchers use mathematical models.Connectionist models are typically used to simulate intrapersonal processes, such as social perception and attitude change, whereas cellular automata and multi-agent models are typically used to simulate interpersonal processes, such as social influence, gossip, culture, and human mating strategies.

Keywords

social psychologypersonalityattitudessocial influencesocial perceptiongroupsculture
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Computational Cognitive Sciences , pp. 795 - 835
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

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

Abelson, R. P. (1963). Computer simulation of “hot cognition.” In Tomkins, S. S. & Messick, S. (Eds.), Computer Simulation of Personality (pp. 277–298). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Abelson, R. P. (1968). Simulation of social behavior. In Lindzey, G. & Aronson, E. (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (revised ed.). Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Abelson, R. P. (1973). The structure of belief systems. In Schank, R. C. & Colby, K. (Eds.), Computer Models of Thought and Language (pp. 287–339). San Francisco, CA: Freeman.Google Scholar
Abelson, R. P., & Bernstein, A. (1963). A computer simulation model of community referendum controversies. Public Opinion Quarterly, 27 (1), 93. https://doi.org/10.1086/267152Google Scholar
Abelson, R. P., & Carroll, J. (1965). Computer simulation of individual belief systems. American Behavioral Scientist, 8 , 24–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abelson, R. P., Aronson, E., McGuire, W. J., Newcomb, T. M., Rosenberg, M. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (Eds.). (1968). Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook. Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the Mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. (1998). The Atomic Components of Thought. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Atkinson, J. W., & Birch, D. (1970). The Dynamics of Action. New York, NY: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Ballew, C. C., & Todorov, A. (2007). Predicting political elections from rapid and unreflective face judgments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104 , 17948–17953.Google Scholar
Bechara, A., & Naqvi, N. (2004). Listening to your heart: interoceptive awareness as a gateway to feeling. Nature Neuroscience, 7 (2), 102–103.Google Scholar
Berridge, K. C. (2012). From prediction error to incentive salience: mesolimbic computation of reward motivation. European Journal of Neuroscience, 35 (7), 1124–1143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2012.07990.xGoogle Scholar
Berridge, K. C., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2013). From experienced utility to decision utility. In Glimcher, P. W. & Fehr, E. (Eds.), Neuroeconomics: Decision Making and the Brain (2nd ed., pp. 325–341). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Brehm, J. W. (1956). Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52 (3), 384–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In Srull, T. K. & Wyer, R. S., Jr. (Eds.), Advances in Social Cognition (pp. 1–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: on being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17 (5), 475–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167291175001Google Scholar
Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L., & Berntson, G. G. (1997). Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures: the case of attitudes and evaluative space. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1 (1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.5.839Google Scholar
Carlston, D. E., Skowronski, J. J., & Sparks, C. (1995). Savings in relearning: II. On the formation of behaviour-based trait associations and inferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69 (3), 420–436.Google Scholar
Centola, D., Willer, R., & Macy, M. (2005). The emperor’s dilemma: a computational model of self-enforcing norms. American Journal of Sociology, 110 (4), 1009–1040.Google Scholar
Colby, K. M. (1975). Artificial Paranoia: A Computer Simulation of Paranoid Processes. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Colby, K. M. (1981). Modeling a paranoid mind. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 515–560.Google Scholar
Conrey, F. R., & Smith, E. (2005). Multi-agent simulation of men’s and women’s mate choice: Sex differences in mate characteristics need not reflect sex differences in mate preferences. Unpublished manuscript, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Cunningham, W. A., & Zelazo, P. D. (2007). Attitudes and evaluations: a social cognitive neuroscience perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 97–104.Google Scholar
Dalege, J., Borsboom, D., van Harreveld, F., & van der Maas, H. L. J. (2018). The attitudinal entropy (ae) framework as a general theory of individual attitudes. Psychological Inquiry, 29 (4), 175–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2018.1537246Google Scholar
Dalege, J., Borsboom, D., van Harreveld, F., van den Berg, H., Conner, M., & van der Maas, H. L. J. (2016). Toward a formalized account of attitudes: the Causal Attitude Network (CAN) model. Psychological Review, 123 (1), 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039802Google Scholar
Dawson, C. K., O’Reilly, R. C., & McClelland, J. L. (2003). The PDP++ Software User’s Manual, version 3.0. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie-Mellon University.Google Scholar
Ehret, P. J., Monroe, B. M., & Read, S. J. (2015). Modeling the dynamics of evaluation: a multilevel neural network implementation of the iterative reprocessing model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19 (2), 148–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eiser, J. R., Fazio, R. H., Stafford, T., & Prescott, T. J. (2003). Connectionist simulation of attitude learning: asymmetries in the acquisition of positive and negative evaluations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29 (10), 1221–1235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203254605Google Scholar
Eiser, J. R., Stafford, T., & Fázio, R. H. (2008). Expectancy confirmation in attitude learning: a connectionist account. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38 (6), 1023–1032. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.530Google Scholar
Eiser, J. R., Stafford, T., & Fazio, R. H. (2009). Prejudiced learning: a connectionist account. British Journal of Psychology, 100 (2), 399–413. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712608X357849Google Scholar
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.Google Scholar
Fiedler, K. (1996). Explaining and simulating judgment biases as an aggregation phenomenon in probabilistic, multiple-cue environments. Psychological Review, 103 (1), 193–214.Google Scholar
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category based to individuating processes: influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In Zanna, M. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 1–74). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Flache, A., Mäs, M., Feliciani, T., et al. (2017). Models of social influence: towards the next frontiers. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 20 (4), 2. https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.3521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleeson, W. (2004). Moving personality beyond the person-situation debate: the challenge and the opportunity of within-person variability. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13 (2), 83–87.Google Scholar
Fleeson, W. (2007). Situation-based contingencies underlying trait-content manifestation in behavior. Journal of Personality, 75 (4), 825–862. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00458.xGoogle Scholar
Freedman, J. L. (1965). Long-term behavioral effects of cognitive dissonance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1 , 145–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(65)90042-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, J. B., & Ambady, N. (2011). A dynamic interactive theory of person construal. Psychological Review, 118 (2), 247–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022327.Google Scholar
Gerard, H. B., & Mathewson, G. C. (1966). The effects of severity of initiation on liking for a group: a replication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2 , 278–287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(66)90084-9Google Scholar
Gray, J. A. (1987a). The neuropsychology of emotion and personality. In Gray, A., Stahl, S. M., Iverson, S. D., & Goodman, E. C. (Eds.), Cognitive Neurochemistry (pp. 171–190). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gray, J. A. (1987b). The Psychology of Fear and Stress (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gray, J. A. (1991). The neuropsychology of temperament. In Strelau, J. & Angleitner, A. (Eds.), Explorations in Temperament: International Perspectives on Theory and Measurement. Perspectives on Individual Differences (pp. 105–128). New York, NY: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Gray, J. A., & McNaughton, N. (2000). The Neuropsychology of Anxiety: An Enquiry into the Functions of the Septo-Hippocampal System (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gray, K., Rand, D. G., Ert, E., Lewis, K., Hershman, S., & Norton, M. I. (2014). The emergence of “us and them” in 80 lines of code: modeling group genesis in homogeneous populations. Psychological Science, 25 (4), 982–990. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614521816Google Scholar
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1989). The self as a memory system: powerful, but ordinary. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 (1), 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gullahorn, J., & Gullahorn, J. E. (1963). A computer model of elementary social behavior. Behavioral Science, 8, 354–362.Google Scholar
Hastie, R. (1988). A computer simulation model of person memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24 (5), 423–447.Google Scholar
Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Hintzman, D. L. (1988). Judgments of frequency and recognition memory in a multiple trace memory model. Psychological Review, 95, 528–551.Google Scholar
Hopfield, J. J. (1982). Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 79, 2554–2558.Google Scholar
Hopfield, J. J. (1984). Neurons with graded responses have collective computational properties like those of two-state neurons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 81, 3088–3092.Google Scholar
Ising, E. (1925). Beitrag zur Theorie des Ferromagnetismus. Zeitschrift für Physik, 31 (1), 253–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02980577Google Scholar
Kalick, S. M., & Hamilton, T. E. (1986). The matching hypothesis reexamined. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (4), 673–682.Google Scholar
Kashima, Y., Woolcock, J., & Kashima, E. S. (2000). Group impressions as dynamic configurations: the tensor product model of group impression formation and change. Psychological Review, 107 (4), 914–942.Google Scholar
Kashima, Y., Woolcock, J., & King, D. (1998). The dynamics of group impression formation: the tensor product model of exemplar-based social category learning. In Read, S. J. & Miller, L. C. (Eds.), Connectionist Models of Social Reasoning and Social Behavior (pp. 71–109). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kenrick, D. T., Li, N. P., & Butner, J. (2003). Dynamical evolutionary psychology: individual decision rules and emergent social norms. Psychological Review, 110 (1), 3–28.Google Scholar
Klapper, A., Dotsch, R., van Rooij, I., & Wigboldus, D. H. J. (2018). Social categorization in connectionist models: a conceptual integration. Social Cognition, 36 (2), 221–246. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2018.36.2.221Google Scholar
Kunda, Z., & Thagard, P. (1996). Forming impressions from stereotypes, traits, and behaviors: a parallel-constraint-satisfaction theory. Psychological Review, 103 (2), 284–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.284Google Scholar
Latané, B. (1996). Strength from weakness: the fate of opinion minorities in spatially distributed groups. In Witte, E. H. & Davis, J. H. (Eds.), Understanding Group Behavior, Vol. 1: Consensual Action by Small Groups (pp. 193–219). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Latané, B. (2000). Pressures to uniformity and the evolution of cultural norms: modeling dynamic social impact. In Ilgen, D. R. & Hulin, C. H. (Eds.), Computational Modeling of Behavior in Organizations: The Third Scientific Discipline (pp. 189–220). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Latané, B., & Bourgeois, M. J. (2001). Successfully simulating dynamic social impact: three levels of prediction. In Forgaz, J. P. & Williams, K. D. (Eds.), Social Influence: Direct and Indirect Processes (pp. 61–76). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Latané, B., Nowak, A., & Liu, J. H. (1994). Measuring emergent social phenomena: dynamism, polarization, and clustering as order parameters of social systems. Behavioral Science, 39 (1), 1–24.Google Scholar
Leonardelli, G. J., Pickett, C. L., & Brewer, M. B. (2010). Optimal distinctiveness theory. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 43, pp. 63–113). London: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(10)43002-6Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1935). A Dynamic Theory of Personality. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1947a). Frontiers in group dynamics: I. Human Relations, 1, 2–38.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1947b). Frontiers in group dynamics: II. Human Relations, 1, 143–153.Google Scholar
Linder, D. E., Cooper, J., & Jones, E. E. (1967). Decision freedom as a determinant of the role of incentive magnitude in attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 245–254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0021220Google Scholar
Linville, P. W., Fischer, G. W., & Salovey, P. (1989). Perceived distributions of the characteristics of in-group and out-group members: empirical evidence and a computer simulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 , 165–188.Google Scholar
Loehlin, J. C. (1968). Computer Models of Personality. New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
MacCoun, R. J. (2012). The burden of social proof: shared thresholds and social influence. Psychological Review, 119 (2), 345–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027121Google Scholar
MacCoun, R. J. (2015). Balancing evidence and norms in cultural evolution. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 129, 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.09.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacCoun, R. J. (2017). Computational models of social influence and collective behavior. In Vallacher, R. R., Read, S. J., & Nowak, A. (Eds.), Computational Social Psychology (pp. 258–280). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mason, W. A., Conrey, F. R., & Smith, E. R. (2007). Situating social influence processes: dynamic, multidirectional flows of influence within social networks. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11 (3), 279–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868307301032Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part I. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375–407.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (Eds.). (1986). Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition. Vol. 2: Psychological and Biological Models. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1988). Explorations in Parallel Distributed Processing: A Handbook of Models, Programs, and Exercises. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.Google Scholar
Miller, N. (1959). Liberalization of basic S-R concepts: extensions to conflict behavior, motivation and social learning. In Koch, S. (Ed.), Psychology: A Study of a Science, Study 1 (Vol. 2, pp. 196–292). London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive affective system theory of personality: reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102 (2), 246–268.Google Scholar
Monroe, B. M., & Read, S. J. (2008). A general connectionist model of attitude structure and change: the ACS (Attitudes as Constraint Satisfaction) model. Psychological Review, 115 (3), 733–759.Google Scholar
Monroe, B. M., Laine, T., Gupta, S., & Farber, I. (2017). Using connectionist models to capture the distinctive psychological structure of impression formation. In Vallacher, R. R., Read, S. J., & Nowak, A. (Eds.), Computational Social Psychology (pp. 38–60). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Montoya, J. A., & Read, S. J. (1998). A constraint satisfaction model of the correspondence bias: the role of accessibility and applicability of explanations. In Gernsbacher, M. A., & Derry, S. J. (Eds.), The Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Cognitive Science Society Conference (pp. 722–727). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Mullen, B. (1983). Operationalizing the effect of the group on the individual: a self-attention perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19 , 295–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(83)90025-2Google Scholar
Muthukrishna, M., & Schaller, M. (2020). Are collectivistic cultures more prone to rapid transformation? Computational models of cross-cultural differences, social network structure, dynamic social influence, and cultural change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24 (2), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868319855783CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nosofsky, R. M. (1987). Attention and learning processes in the identification and categorization of integral stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 87–108.Google Scholar
Nowak, A., & Vallacher, R. R. (1998). Toward computational social psychology: cellular automata and neural network models of interpersonal dynamics. In Read, S. J. & Miller, L. C. (Eds.), Connectionist Models of Social Reasoning and Social Behavior (pp. 277–311). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Nowak, A., Gelfand, M. J., Borkowski, W., Cohen, D., & Hernandez, I. (2016). The evolutionary basis of honor cultures. Psychological Science, 27 (1), 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615602860Google Scholar
Nowak, A., Szamrej, J., & Latané, B. (1990). From private attitude to public opinion: a dynamic theory of social impact. Psychological Review, 97 (3), 362–376.Google Scholar
Nowak, A., Vallacher, R. R., & Zochowski, M. (2002). The emergence of personality: personal stability through interpersonal synchronization. In Cervone, D. & Mischel, W. (Eds.), Advances in Personality Science (Vol. 1, pp. 292–331). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Nowak, A., Vallacher, R. R., Tesser, A., & Borkowski, W. (2000). Society of self: the emergence of collective properties in self-structure. Psychological Review, 107 (1), 39–61.Google Scholar
O’Reilly, R. C., & Munakata, Y. (2000). Computational Explorations in Cognitive Neuroscience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Orghian, D., Garcia-Marques, L., Uleman, J. S., & Heinke, D. (2015). A connectionist model of spontaneous trait inference and spontaneous trait transference: do they have the same underlying processes? Social Cognition, 33 (1), 20–66.Google Scholar
Orr, M. G., & Chen, D. (2017). Computational modeling of health behavior. In Vallacher, R. R., Read, S. J., & Nowak, A. (Eds.), Computational Social Psychology (pp. 81–102). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Orr, M. G., Thrush, R., & Plaut, D. C. (2013). The theory of reasoned action as parallel constraint satisfaction: towards a dynamic computational model of health behavior. PLoS ONE, 8 (5), e62490. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062490Google Scholar
Pickering, A. D. (2008). Formal and computational models of reinforcement sensitivity theory. In Corr, P. J. (Ed.), The Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality (pp. 453–481). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Queller, S., & Smith, E. R. (2002). Subtyping versus bookkeeping in stereotype learning and change: connectionist simulations and empirical findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 (3), 300–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, S. J., Brown, A. D., Wang, P., & Miller, L. C. (2021). Neural networks and virtual personalities: capturing the structure and dynamics of personality. In Rauthmann, J. F. (Ed.), The Handbook of Personality Dynamics and Processes. London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Read, S. J., Droutman, V., & Miller, L. C. (2017). Virtual personalities: a neural network model of the structure and dynamics of personality. In Vallacher, R. R., Read, S. J., & Nowak, A. (Eds.), Computational Social Psychology. (pp. 15–37). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, S. J., & Marcus-Newhall, A. (1993). Explanatory coherence in social explanations: a parallel distributed processing account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 , 429–447.Google Scholar
Read, S. J., & Miller, L. C. (1993). Rapist or “regular guy”: explanatory coherence in the construction of mental models of others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 526–540.Google Scholar
Read, S. J., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Dissonance and balance in belief systems: the promise of parallel constraint satisfaction processes and connectionist modeling approaches. In Schank, R. C. & Langer, E. (Eds.), Beliefs, Reasoning, and Decision-making: Psycho-logic in Honor of Bob Abelson. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Read, S. J., & Miller, L. C. (2002). Virtual personalities: a neural network model of personality. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6 (4), 357–369.Google Scholar
Read, S. J., & Miller, L. C. (2021). Neural network models of personality structure and dynamics. In Wood, D., Harms, P., Read, S. J., & Slaughter, A., (Eds.), Measuring and Modeling Persons and Situations. Cambridge, MA: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Read, S. J., Monroe, B. M., Brownstein, A. L., Yang, Y., Chopra, G., & Miller, L. C. (2010). A neural network model of the structure and dynamics of human personality. Psychological Review, 117 (1), 61–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018131.Google Scholar
Read, S. J., & Monroe, B. M. (2019). Modeling cognitive dissonance as a parallel constraint satisfaction network with learning. In Harmon-Jones, E. (Ed.), Cognitive Dissonance: Reexamining a Pivotal Theory in Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 197–226). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000135-010Google Scholar
Read, S. J., & Montoya, J. A. (1999a). An auto associative model of causal learning and causal reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 728–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, S. J., & Montoya, J. A. (1999b). A feedback neural network model of causal learning and causal reasoning. In Hahn, M. & Stoness, S. C. (Eds.), The Proceedings of the Twenty-first Annual Cognitive Science Society Conference (pp. 578–583). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Read, S. J., Smith, B., Droutman, V., & Miller, L. C. (2017). Virtual personalities: using computational modeling to understand within-person variability. Journal of Research in Personality, 69, 237–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.10.005Google Scholar
Read, S. J., & Urada, D. I. (2003). A neural network simulation of the outgroup homogeneity effect. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7 (2), 146–159.Google Scholar
Read, S. J., Vanman, E. J., & Miller, L. C. (1997). Connectionism, parallel constraint satisfaction processes, and gestalt principles: (Re) introducing cognitive dynamics to social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 26–53.Google Scholar
Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement. In Black, A. H. & Prokasy, W. F. (Eds.), Classical Conditioning II: Current Research and Theory. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Revelle, W., & Condon, D. M. (2015). A model for personality at three levels. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.12.006Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (Eds.). (1986). Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition: Vol. 1: Foundations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Shanks, D. R. (1991). Categorization by a connectionist network. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17 , 433–443.Google Scholar
Shoda, Y., LeeTiernan, S., & Mischel, W. (2002). Personality as a dynamical system: emergency of stability and distinctiveness from intra- and interpersonal interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6 (4), 316–325.Google Scholar
Shultz, T. R., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Cognitive dissonance reduction as constraint satisfaction. Psychological Review, 103 (2), 219–240.Google Scholar
Shultz, T. R., & Lepper, M. R. (1998). The consonance model of dissonance reduction. In Read, S. J. & Miller, L. C. (Eds.), Connectionist Models of Social Reasoning and Social Behavior (pp. 211–244). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Shultz, T. R., Leveille, E., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Free choice and cognitive dissonance revisited: choosing “lesser evils” versus “greater goods.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25 (1), 40–48.Google Scholar
Skowronski, J. J., Carlston, D. E., Mae, L., & Crawford, M. T. (1998). Spontaneous trait transference: communicators take on the qualities they describe in others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (4), 837–848.Google Scholar
Smaldino, P. E., & Epstein, J. M. (2015). Social conformity despite individual preferences for distinctiveness. Royal Society Open Science, 2 (3), 140437. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.140437Google Scholar
Smaldino, P., Pickett, C., Sherman, J., & Schank, J. (2012). An agent-based model of social identity dynamics. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 15 (4), 7. https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.2030Google Scholar
Smillie, L. D., Pickering, A. D., & Jackson, C. J. (2006). The new reinforcement sensitivity theory: implications for personality measurement. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10 (4), 320–335. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_3Google Scholar
Smith, E. R. (1991). Illusory correlation in a simulated exemplar-based memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27 (2), 107–123.Google Scholar
Smith, E. R. (2014). Evil acts and malicious gossip: a multiagent model of the effects of gossip in socially distributed person perception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18 (4), 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314530515Google Scholar
Smith, E. R., Coats, S., & Walling, D. (1999). Overlapping mental representations of self, in-group, and partner: further response time evidence and a connectionist model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25 (7), 873–882.Google Scholar
Smith, E. R., & Collins, E. C. (2009). Contextualizing person perception: distributed social cognition. Psychological Review, 116 (2), 343–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015072Google Scholar
Smith, E. R., & DeCoster, J. (1998). Knowledge acquisition, accessibility, and use in person perception and stereotyping: simulation with a recurrent connectionist network. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (1), 21–35.Google Scholar
Smith, E. R., & Zárate, M. A. (1992). Exemplar-based model of social judgment. Psychological Review, 99 (1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.3Google Scholar
Sorrentino, R. M., Smithson, M., Hodson, G., Roney, C. J. R., & Walker, A. M. (2003). The theory of uncertainty orientation: a mathematical reformulation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 47 (2), 132–149.Google Scholar
Spellman, B. A., Ullman, J. B., & Holyoak, K. J. (1993). A coherence model of cognitive consistency: dynamics of attitude change during the Persian Gulf War. Journal of Social Issues, 49 (4), 147–165.Google Scholar
Sun, R., Slusarz, P., & Terry, C. (2005). The interaction of the explicit and the implicit in skill learning: a dual-process approach. Psychological Review, 112, 159–192.Google Scholar
Tanford, S., & Penrod, S. (1983). Computer modeling of influence in the jury: the role of the consistent juror. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46 , 200–212. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033791Google Scholar
Thagard, P. (1989). Explanatory coherence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12 (3), 435–502.Google Scholar
Thagard, P. (2000). Probabilistic networks and explanatory coherence. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 1 (1), 91–114.Google Scholar
Thagard, P. (2003). Why wasn’t O. J. convicted: emotional coherence in legal inference. Cognition and Emotion, 17, 361–383.Google Scholar
Todorov, A., & Uleman, J. S. (2002). Spontaneous trait inferences are bound to actors’ faces: evidence from a false recognition paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (5), 1051–1065.Google Scholar
Todorov, A., & Uleman, J. S. (2003). The efficiency of binding spontaneous trait inferences to actors’ faces. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39 (6), 549–562.Google Scholar
Todorov, A., & Uleman, J. S. (2004). The person reference process in spontaneous trait inferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87 (4), 482–493.Google Scholar
Tomkins, S. S., & Messick, S. (Eds.). (1963). Computer Simulations of Personality. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Turner, M. A., & Smaldino, P. E. (2018). Paths to polarization: how extreme views, miscommunication, and random chance drive opinion dynamics. Complexity, 2018, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2740959Google Scholar
Uleman, J. S., Newman, L. S., & Moskowitz, G. B. (1996). People as flexible interpreters: evidence and issues from spontaneous trait inference. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 211–279.Google Scholar
Van Overwalle, F. (1998). Causal explanation as constraint satisfaction: a critique and a feedforward connectionist alternative. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 312–328.Google Scholar
Van Overwalle, F., & Heylighen, F. (2006). Talking nets: a multiagent connectionist approach to communication and trust between individuals. Psychological Review, 113 (3), 606–627. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.3.606Google Scholar
Van Overwalle, F., & Jordens, K. (2002). An adaptive connectionist model of cognitive dissonance. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6 (3), 204–231.Google Scholar
Van Overwalle, F., & Labiouse, C. (2004). A recurrent connectionist model of person impression formation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8 (1), 28–61.Google Scholar
Van Overwalle, F., & Siebler, F. (2005). A connectionist model of attitude formation and change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9 (3), 231–274.Google Scholar
Van Overwalle, F., & Van Rooy, D. (1998). A connectionist approach to causal attribution. In Read, S. J. & Miller, L. C. (Eds.), Connectionist Models of Social Reasoning and Social Behavior (pp. 143–171). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Van Overwalle, F., & Van Rooy, D. (2001). How one cause discounts or augments another: a connectionist account of causal competition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27 (12), 1613–1626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Rooy, D., Van Overwalle, F., Vanhoomissen, T., Labiouse, C., & French, R. (2003). A recurrent connectionist model of group biases. Psychological Review, 110 (3), 536–563.Google Scholar
Widrow, G., & Hoff, M. E. (1960). Adaptive switching circuits. In Institute of Radio Engineers, Western Electronic Show and Convention, Convention Record (Part 4, pp. 96–104).Google Scholar
Zebrowitz, L. A., Fellous, J., Mignault, A., & Andreoletti, C.(2003).Trait impressions as overgeneralized responses to adaptively significant facial qualities: evidence from connectionist modeling. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7 (3), 194–215.Google Scholar
Zebrowitz, L. A., Kikuchi, M., & Fellous, J.-M. (2007). Are effects of emotion expression on trait impressions mediated by babyfaceness? Evidence from connectionist modeling. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33 (5), 648–662. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206297399Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×