Additional Resources

Central Cognitive-Affective Map Publications

Literature (sorted thematically)

Please check out the CAM research at the University of Freiburg for master theses not mentioned here.

CAMs for conflict resolution / mediation

  • CAMs analyzed as a mediating tool by letting participants draw a CAM about a fictional technological implant and before they had to draw a second CAM one week later, they were shown a CAM contrary to their own on the same topic1
  • CAMs to illustrate individuals’ concepts and beliefs on the exemplary topics of (1) German housing policy, (2) the Israelis’ meaning of the Western Wall, (3) the exploitation of Canada’s bitumen resources, and (4) climate change for conflict analysis2
  • CAMs to describe cultural thought and to highlight relevant cultural differences and for conflict resolution3
  • CAMs are presented as a method to depict individual and collective beliefs for conflict analysis (e.g., to locate points of difference and emotionally loaded concepts)4
  • CAMs to analyze the emotional changes in the 1978 Camp David negotiations by modeling the mental states of Sadat and Begin based on Carter’s memoirs5

CAMs to depict belief systems / political ideologies

  • CAMs as a part of a complex system approach to study ideologies as conceptual networks of cognitive-affective representations embedded in social networks of people (among other methods like connectionist simulations and agent-based modeling)6
  • CAMs on the basis of in-depth interviews with diplomats/nonstate actors to compare belief structures about climate change7
  • CAMs created by researchers on the basis of Reddit posts for understanding political ideologies (masculinity, shame, injustice)8
  • CAMs for showing the structure of ideologies, e.g., mapping Nazi, anarchist, and right-wing ideologies; also, multi-modal CAMs with nonverbal representations are suggested9
  • CAMs to model the appeal of ideologies to their supporters, exemplified by attitudes towards transgender rights (coherent with left-wing ideologies, incoherent with right-wing ideologies)10

CAMs for applied ethics

  • CAMs as a tool for applied ethics; difference between CAMs at the beginning and end of the semester were analyzed (topic: nature imitation in technology development)11
  • CAMs as a method for applied ethics to map students’ values on controversial topics12
  • Applying the multi-coherence theory, which serves as a comprehensive constraint satisfaction framework that unifies various ethical principles, allowing for the simultaneous assessment of multiple principles and the management of ethical conflicts in a context-sensitive manner13
  • Theory of ethical coherence14

CAMs for qualitative analysis (no network parameters)

  • CAMs to reveal individuals’ (change of) emotions, values, beliefs and norms within a water community / network and to find potential for addressing embedded innovation barriers15
  • CAMs drawn in combination with and on the basis of SAKD (sociology of knowledge approach to discourse) to reconstruct typical patterns of knowledge, practices, and forms of subjectivation (topic: stimulation interactions in day care-centers)16

CAMs for quantitative analysis / mixed research

  • Changes between pre- and post CAMs by 66 participants (topic: corona pandemic; intervention: leisure walking) were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively17
  • CAMs of 111 participants (topic: carbon tax in Canada) were analyzed quantitatively (can the graphs’ emotional and structural properties predict participants’ tax support)18
  • CAMs of 193 participants (topic: corona pandemic) were analyzed quantitatively (can the graphs’ emotional and structural properties predict the perceived coronavirus threat)19
  • CAMs of 58 participants and of 600 participants (only survey data) regarding the acceptability and ethical concerns of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively20

References

  1. Wilhelm Gros, Lisa Reuter, Michael Stumpf, and Andrea Kiesel. CAMediaid: multimethod approach to assess cognitive-affective maps in mediation - a quantitative validation study. Master's thesis, University of Freiburg, 2021. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.12436.78726. ↩

  2. Thomas Homer-Dixon, Manjana Milkoreit, Steven J. Mock, Tobias Schröder, and Paul Thagard. The Conceptual Structure of Social Disputes: Cognitive-Affective Maps as a Tool for Conflict Analysis and Resolution. SAGE Open, 4(1):1–20, January 2014. URL: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244014526210 (visited on 2022-07-06), doi:10.1177/2158244014526210. ↩

  3. Paul Thagard. Mapping minds across cultures. In Grounding Social Sciences in Cognitive Sciences, pages 35–60. MIT Press, July 2012. ↩

  4. Steven Mock and Thomas Homer-Dixon. The Ideological Conflict Project: Theoretical and Methodological Foundations. Technical Report 74, Centre for International Governance Innovation, 2015. URL: https://www.cigionline.org/static/documents/cigi_paper_74_web_0.pdf. ↩

  5. Scott D. Findlay and Paul Thagard. Emotional Change in International Negotiation: Analyzing the Camp David Accords Using Cognitive-Affective Maps. Group Decis Negot, 23(6):1281–1300, November 2014. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-011-9242-x (visited on 2022-11-18), doi:10.1007/s10726-011-9242-x. ↩

  6. Thomas Homer-Dixon, Jonathan Leader Maynard, Matto Mildenberger, Manjana Milkoreit, Steven J. Mock, Stephen Quilley, Tobias Schröder, and Paul Thagard. A Complex Systems Approach to the Study of Ideology: Cognitive-Affective Structures and the Dynamics of Belief Systems. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 1(1):337–363, December 2013. Number: 1. URL: https://jspp.psychopen.eu/index.php/jspp/article/view/4763 (visited on 2022-07-06), doi:10.5964/jspp.v1i1.36. ↩

  7. Manjana Milkoreit. Mindmade Politics: The Cognitive Roots of International Climate Governance. The MIT Press, June 2017. ISBN 978-0-262-34058-8. URL: https://direct.mit.edu/books/book/3122/Mindmade-PoliticsThe-Cognitive-Roots-of (visited on 2023-07-10), doi:10.7551/mitpress/10795.001.0001. ↩

  8. Megan Clapp. Mapping and Comparing Political Ideologies, Masculinity Ideologies, and Shame Ideologies. PhD thesis, Suffolk University, April 2021. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.29522.07360. ↩

  9. Paul Thagard. The Cognitive–Affective Structure of Political Ideologies. In Bilyana Martinovsky, editor, Emotion in Group Decision and Negotiation, Advances in Group Decision and Negotiation, pages 51–71. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2015. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9963-8_3 (visited on 2022-11-18), doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9963-8_3. ↩

  10. Paul Thagard. Social Equality: Cognitive Modeling Based on Emotional Coherence Explains Attitude Change. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(2):247–256, October 2018. Publisher: SAGE Publications. URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732218782995 (visited on 2023-07-10), doi:10.1177/2372732218782995. ↩

  11. Philipp Höfele, Lisa Reuter, Louisa Estadieu, Sabrina Livanec, Michael Stumpf, and Andrea Kiesel. Connecting the methods of psychology and philosophy: Applying Cognitive-Affective Maps (CAMs) to identify ethical principles underlying the evaluation of bioinspired technologies. Philosophical Psychology, 0(0):1–24, September 2022. Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2022.2113770. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2022.2113770 (visited on 2022-11-17), doi:10.1080/09515089.2022.2113770. ↩

  12. Paul Thagard. Value Maps in Applied Ethics. Teaching Ethics, October 2014. URL: https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase?openform&fp=tej&id=tej_2014_0999_9_22_1 (visited on 2022-07-07), doi:10.5840/tej20149221. ↩

  13. Levent Yilmaz, Ana Franco-Watkins, and Timothy S. Kroecker. Computational models of ethical decision-making: A coherence-driven reflective equilibrium model. Cognitive Systems Research, 46:61–74, December 2017. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389041716301218 (visited on 2022-09-26), doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.02.005. ↩

  14. Paul Thagard. Ethical coherence. Philosophical Psychology, 11(4):405–422, December 1998. Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089808573270. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089808573270 (visited on 2022-07-06), doi:10.1080/09515089808573270. ↩

  15. S. E. Wolfe. Water Cognition and Cognitive Affective Mapping: Identifying Priority Clusters Within a Canadian Water Efficiency Community. Water Resources Management, 26(10):2991–3004, August 2012. URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11269-012-0061-x (visited on 2022-07-06), doi:10.1007/s11269-012-0061-x. ↩

  16. Jasmin Luthardt, Tobias Schröder, Frauke Hildebrandt, and Inka Bormann. “And Then We’ll Just Check If It Suits Us” – Cognitive-Affective Maps of Social Innovation in Early Childhood Education. Frontiers in Education, 5:1–19, 2020. URL: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2020.00033 (visited on 2022-07-07), doi:10.3389/feduc.2020.00033. ↩

  17. Lisa Reuter, Julius Fenn, Tobias Andreas Bilo, Melanie Schulz, Annemarie Lina Weyland, Andrea Kiesel, and Roland Thomaschke. Leisure walks modulate the cognitive and affective representation of the corona pandemic: Employing Cognitive-Affective Maps within a randomized experimental design. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 13(4):952–967, 2021. _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/aphw.12283. URL: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/aphw.12283 (visited on 2022-07-06), doi:10.1111/aphw.12283. ↩

  18. Jordan Mansell, Steven Mock, Carter Rhea, Adrienne Tecza, and Jinelle Piereder. Measuring attitudes as a complex system: Structured thinking and support for the Canadian carbon tax. Politics and the Life Sciences, 40(2):179–201, 2021. Publisher: Cambridge University Press. URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-the-life-sciences/article/abs/measuring-attitudes-as-a-complex-system/751DA923AFE65ABDC61C4F39F26E151A (visited on 2022-07-06), doi:10.1017/pls.2021.16. ↩

  19. Jordan Mansell, Lisa Reuter, Carter Rhea, and Andrea Kiesel. A Novel Network Approach to Capture Cognition and Affect: COVID-19 Experiences in Canada and Germany. Frontiers in Psychology, 12:1–14, 2021. URL: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.663627 (visited on 2022-07-06), doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.663627. ↩

  20. Julius Fenn, Jessica F. Helm, Philipp Höfele, Lars Kulbe, Andreas Ernst, and Andrea Kiesel. Identifying key-psychological factors influencing the acceptance of yet emerging technologies–a multi-method-approach to inform climate policy. Plos Climate, 2(6):1–25, 2023. Publisher: Public Library of Science. URL: https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000207 (visited on 2023-06-07), doi:10.1371/journal.pclm.0000207. ↩