Advertisement

Hierarchies of Purpose

  • Davood Gozli
Chapter
  • 243 Downloads

Abstract

Actions and goals can be described in terms of relatively superordinate (abstract, long-term) or relatively subordinate concepts (concrete, short-term). Although we often see subordinate action concepts (hand-waving) as the expression of relatively more superordinate concepts (saying hello), the relation between the two is, in principle, contingent. Furthermore, among the possible concepts that we can use to describe an action, there is usually one that seems more visible to us. This fact can be expressed with reference to Eleanor Rosch’s basic-level categories. The hierarchical nature of actions and goals, and the fact that the relation between the levels can change, is emphasized by drawing attention to explorative/improvisational activities.

Keywords

Agency Control Purpose Goal Intention Contingency Necessity Goal hierarchies Exploitation Exploration Goal-directed action Basic-level categories Subordinate Superordinate Categories 

References

  1. Anselme, P., & Güntürkün, O. (2019). How foraging works: Uncertainty magnifies food-seeking motivation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 42, e35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Billig, M. (1999). Freudian repression: Conversation creating the unconscious. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borhani, K., Beck, B., & Haggard, P. (2017). Choosing, doing, and controlling: Implicit sense of agency over somatosensory events. Psychological Science, 28, 882–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caspar, E. A., Cleeremans, A., & Haggard, P. (2018). Only giving orders? An experimental study of the sense of agency when giving or receiving commands. PLoS One, 13(9), e0204027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chambon, V., Domenech, P., Jacquet, P. O., Barbalat, G., Bouton, S., Pacherie, E., … Farrer, C. (2017). Neural coding of prior expectations in hierarchical intention inference. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chambon, V., Domenech, P., Pacherie, E., Koechlin, E., Baraduc, P., & Farrer, C. (2011). What are they up to? The role of sensory evidence and prior knowledge in action understanding. PLoS One, 6(2), e17133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, B.-B., & Chang, L. (2016). Procrastination as a fast life history strategy. Evolutionary Psychology, 14(1), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeYoung, C. G. (2015). Cybernetic big five theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Di Domenico, S. I., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). The emerging neuroscience of intrinsic motivation: A new frontier in self-determination research. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Engelsted, N. (1989). What is the psyche and how did it get into the world? In N. Engelsted, L. Hem, & J. Mammen (Eds.), Essays in general psychology: Seven Danish contributions presented to Henrik Poulsen. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Engelsted, N. (2017). Catching up with Aristotle: A journey in quest of general psychology. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goschke, T. (2013). Volition in action: Intentions, control dilemmas and the dynamic regulation of intentional control. In W. Prinz, A. Beisert, & A. Herwig (Eds.), Action science: Foundations of an emerging discipline (pp. 409–434). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gozli, D. G. (2017). Behaviour versus performance: The veiled commitment of experimental psychology. Theory & Psychology, 27, 741–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gozli, D. G., & Brown, L. E. (2011). Agency and control for the integration of a virtual tool into the peripersonal space. Perception, 40, 1309–1319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gozli, D. G., & Dolcini, N. (2018). Reaching into the unknown: Actions, goal hierarchies, and explorative agency. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gozli, D. G., & Gao, C. J. (2019). Hope, exploration, and equilibrated action schemes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 42, E41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haggard, P., & Chambon, V. (2012). Sense of agency. Current Biology, 22(10), R390–R392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hasson, U., Chen, J., & Honey, C. J. (2015). Hierarchical process memory: Memory as an integral component of information processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(6), 304–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Measuring passionate love in intimate relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 9(4), 383–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hills, T. T., Todd, P. M., Lazer, D., Redish, A. D., Couzin, I. D., & Cognitive Search Research Group. (2015). Exploration versus exploitation in space, mind, and society. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 46–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hommel, B. (2000). The prepared reflex: Automaticity and control in stimulus-response translation. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance (Vol. XVIII, pp. 247–273). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hommel, B. (2013). Ideomotor action control: On the perceptual grounding of voluntary actions and agents. In W. Prinz, M. Beisert, & A. Herwig (Eds.), Action science: Foundations of an emerging discipline (pp. 113–136). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hommel, B. (2015). Between persistence and flexibility: The yin and Yang of action control. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Advances in motivation science (Vol. 2, pp. 33–67). New York, NY: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  24. Hommel, B. (2017). Consciousness and action control. In T. Egner (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive control (pp. 111–123). Chichester, UK: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hommel, B., & Colzato, L. S. (2017). The social transmission of metacontrol policies: Mechanisms underlying the interpersonal transfer of persistence and flexibility. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 81, 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kukla, A., & Walmsley, J. (2006). Mind: A historical and philosophical introduction to the major theories. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Mammen, J. (2017). A new logical foundation for psychology. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marken, R. S. (2013). Taking purpose into account in experimental psychology: Testing for controlled variables. Psychological Reports, 112(1), 184–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marken, R. S. (2014). Doing research on purpose: A control theory approach to experimental psychology. Chapel Hill, NC: New View.Google Scholar
  30. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945, 2012). Phenomenology of perception (D. Landes, Trans.). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Newell, B. R., & Shanks, D. R. (2014). Unconscious influences on decision making: A critical review. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pacherie, E. (2008). The phenomenology of action: A conceptual framework. Cognition, 107, 179–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pfister, R. (2019). Effect-based action control with body-related effects: Implications for empirical approaches to ideomotor action control. Psychological Review, 126(1), 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child (M. Cook, Trans.). New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  36. Powers, W. T. (1998). Making sense of behavior. Montclair, NJ: Benchmark Publications.Google Scholar
  37. Pressing, J. (1984). Cognitive processes in improvisation. Advances in Psychology, 19, 345–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Concepts: Core readings (pp. 189–206). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. London, UK: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  40. Silvia, P. J. (2007). How to write a lot: A practical guide to productive academic writing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  41. Smedslund, J. (2002). From hypothesis-testing psychology to procedure-testing psychologic. Review of General Psychology, 6(1), 51–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Steenbergen, H., Langeslag, S. J., Band, G. P., & Hommel, B. (2014). Reduced cognitive control in passionate lovers. Motivation and Emotion, 38, 444–450.Google Scholar
  43. Wen, W., Yamashita, A., & Asama, H. (2015). The influence of goals on sense of control. Consciousness and Cognition, 37, 83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wen, W., Yamashita, A., & Asama, H. (2016). Divided attention and processes underlying sense of agency. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  46. Wolpert, D. M. (1997). Computational approaches to motor control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1, 209–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Young, K. S. (1998). Internet addiction: The emergence of a new clinical disorder. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 1, 237–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Davood Gozli
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MacauTaipaMacao

Personalised recommendations