Search results

The purpose of this study is to develop a generic cultural socio-cognitive trait theory of a “plural affect agency” (the emotional organisation). Interaction between the cognitive and the affective personality is modelled.

James Gross’ (1988) model of Emotion Regulation is integrated with Normative Personality Theory in the context of Mindset Agency Theory: The agency has a “cognitive system” and an emotion regulating “affective system” which interact (Fink and Yolles, 2015).

Processes of emotion regulation pass through three stages: “Identification”, “Elaboration” and “Execution”. In a social environment, emotions are expressed through actions. The results of actions (feedback, goal achievement) are assessed through affective operative intelligence in the light of pursued goals.

The theory will provide guidance for analysis of cultural differentiation within social systems (e.g. societies or organisations), with reference to identification, elaboration and execution of “emotion knowledge”.

Understanding interdependencies between cognition and emotion regulation is a prerequisite of managerial intelligence and strategic cultural intelligence, in demand for interaction and integration processes across social systems.

The model provides a framework which links emotion expression and emotion regulation with cognition analysis. In part 2 of this paper, based on this theory a typology can be developed which for given contexts allows ex ante expectations of typical patterns of behaviour to be identified.

Cultural agency theory (CAT) generates higher simplex through principles of recursion, and, in this way, it is able to create a potential for the generation of families of new paradigms in different fields. Characterised by its interdisciplinary nature, CAT’s origins have a heterogeneous nature related to different disciplines and research fields. With this in mind, the present manuscript aims to shed light on the antecedents of CAT, especially emphasising the role of Schwarz’s studies as a feel rouge in the evolution of this theory.

Through a systematic review of the previous literature, this paper highlights the multidisciplinary nature of CAT, mapping the multifaceted framework of its antecedents.

The results are summarised in a conceptual map that does not constitute a point of arrival, but rather a starting point: consolidating the current state, this paper also provides new insights for further studies.

This manuscript still remains a theoretical point of view. Further studies are required to apply this study’s reasoning.

From a theoretical point of view, this paper achieves a new and original cornerstone about the previous studies on CAT; from a practical viewpoint, this paper gets an input for further implications. While these theories were originally setup for cognitive processes, this paper suggests extensions to model a complex adaptive system framework for management and marketing studies.

This paper aims to use the cultural agency theory (CAT) formulated to represent a personality in which multiple identities reside. Dynamic identity theory is used to explain the relationship between the multiple identities, which impact on personality creating imperatives for behaviour. The mindset agency theory (MAT), a development of CAT, is used to evaluate the personal and public identities of Theresa May, the UK Prime Minister in 2017, to determine whether there is a psychological reason for the political inconsistency she demonstrated prior to and during the UK general election campaign.

CAT connects identity and personality theories and is elaborated on conceptually to include the dynamic identity theory, which explains how identities develop. Developing identities result in personality adjustments through trait movements. The theory is applied to Theresa May, the UK Prime Minister in 2017. A selection of her election narratives is taken, and summative content analysis is applied. Her public and personal identities are examined in this way. Data results are tested for reliability, and her public and personal identities are compared using MAT.

Theresa May’s personal and public identities, while related, have some differences, suggesting a clinical explanation for her political inconsistencies.

There is no other current theory that explains the relationship between personality and identity and can evaluate personality using a qualitative–quantitative approach, undertaking a comparative evaluation of multiple identities to explain clinical psychological conditions.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the personal identity of Donald Trump in the US presidential election using the mindset agency theory framework and content analysis.

The qualitative evaluation of identity type is determined by the personality mindset agency theory (PMAT). This measures qualitatively by assigning a type to the personal identity. The methods being adopted are content analysis, and a coding frame is constructed that arises from the key words defined in PMAT.

Using PMAT, the authors determine that Trump’s personal identity is of the type hierarchical popularism (HP), from which behavioural patterns are derived, supposing that this is consistent with his public identity type measured using agency MAT (AMAT), which will be assessed in part 3 of this paper.

Appropriate image management can be used in an attempt to hide problematic purely self-interest aspects of a personality. This paper shows that it is possible to evaluate personality mindsets using content analysis. In a later paper, exploration of agency mindsets will occur that is indicative of the potential for behaviour.

A typology of basic affective and cognitive orientations is developed within a generic cultural socio-cognitive trait theory of a “plural affect agency” (the emotional organisation).

Affective personality is defined in terms of a set of affect traits. These are defined in terms of epistemically independent bipolar affect types, which in turn coalesce into a set of mindset types that can be related to the classical four temperaments.

Different affect types are supposed to differently regulate the three stages of emotion management. Affect types and cognitive types provide mutual contexts, and foster reciprocal affect and cognitive orientations.

The theory provides guidance for analysis of cultural differentiation within social systems (societies/organisations), with reference to identification, elaboration and execution of “emotion knowledge” and “cognitive knowledge”.

Understanding interdependencies between cognition and emotion regulation is a prerequisite of managerial intelligence and strategic cultural intelligence, which is in demand for interaction and integration processes across social systems.

From the framework model linking emotion expression and emotion regulation with cognition analysis, a typology arises allowing ex-ante expectation of typical patterns of behaviour.

Complex systems adapt to survive, but little comparative literature exists on various approaches. Adaptive complex systems are generic, this referring to propositions concerning their bounded instability, adaptability and viability. Two classes of adaptive complex system theories exist: hard and soft. Hard complexity theories include Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and Viability Theory, and softer theories, which we refer to as Viable Systems Theories (VSTs), that includes Management Cybernetics at one extreme and Humanism at the other. This paper has a dual purpose distributed across two parts. In part 1 the purpose was to identify the conditions for the complementarity of the two classes of theory. In part 2 the two the purpose is to explore (in part using Agency Theory) the two classes of theory and their proposed complexity continuum.

Explanation is provided for the anticipation of behaviour cross-disciplinary fields of theory dealing with adaptive complex systems. A comparative exploration of the theories is undertaken to elicit concepts relevant to a complexity continuum. These explain how agency behaviour can be anticipated under uncertainty. Also included is a philosophical exploration of the complexity continuum, expressing it in terms of a graduated set of philosophical positions that are differentiated in terms of objects and subjects. These are then related to hard and softer theories in the continuum. Agency theory is then introduced as a framework able to comparatively connect the theories on this continuum, from theories of complexity to viable system theories, and how harmony theories can develop.

Anticipation is explained in terms of an agency’s meso-space occupied by a regulatory framework, and it is shown that hard and softer theory are equivalent in this. From a philosophical perspective, the hard-soft continuum is definable in terms of objectivity and subjectivity, but there are equivalences to the external and internal worlds of an agency. A fifth philosophical position of critical realism is shown to be representative of harmony theory in which internal and external worlds can be related. Agency theory is also shown to be able to operate as a harmony paradigm, as it can explore external behaviour of an agent using a hard theory perspective together with an agent’s internal cultural and cognitive-affect causes.

There are very few comparative explorations of the relationship between hard and soft approaches in the field of complexity and even fewer that draw in the notion of harmony. There is also little pragmatic illustration of a harmony paradigm in action within the context of complexity.

This paper is in two parts. The purpose of the first part was to explore the basis for the creation of an agentic ecology theory that could provide a generic multidisciplinary context-free manifold that can be applied to specific domains and contexts. As an element of this, it explored the relationship between agency and its agents (at various foci) and the nature of agency ecologies. It also explored the relationship between viability and sustainability. In this second part, the purpose is to create an agency model that will recognise the analytical and decision-making attributes of the viability–sustainability relationship by centring on the modelling a socioeconomic ecosystem and a social disciplinary species model.

Agency theory will be used to model a generic agency ecology and its environment of subordinate elements – especially those subordinates that can be used as amenities to satisfy the needs to agency development. Part 1 of the paper took a tour of concepts relevant to the representation of ecosystem structures and their application. Part 2 will centre on delivering a schema capable of embracing agency ecology from which applications may derive.

It is shown agency theory is not only a modelling schema but can also provide diagnosis to examine the condition of, or for locating problems within, an agency in its ecosystem environment. This is illustrated within a socioeconomic context.

The paper is conceptual in nature, without any to diagnose any substantive issues within the socio-economic context.

A generalized agency ecology approach is proposed over this two-part paper that is novel through the use of 3rd order cybernetics.

There is fragmentation in the academic study of identity theory, and it is dislocated from personality theory. The paper aims to develop a model that resolves both of these issues using autonomous agency theory. It is shown that identities can be evaluated using mindset agency theory. Application is then made to a case study of Donald Trump’s US election campaign.

In the first of this three-part paper, the fragmented identity theory is examined ontologically to generate a coherent model of multiple identities.

A new coherent model of multiple identities is created.

There is not currently any that has created coherent theory of multiple identities.

Agency development is inherently a process of institutional evolution. The purpose of this part 2 (of a 3 part) paper is to explore development in the political context, producing a cultural model of political development as institutional evolution, explaining how political groups may come to power culturally. This requires a detailed examination of culture and cultural change, and a study of strategic political frames that define political groups seeking support for political power from agents in a political sphere. During cultural instabilities or social crises, frames may become cynical and embrace liquid persuasion and hence populism.

A cultural model for political development is created involving three variables (emotional climate, cultural order and compliance). This enables cultural comparison of different political groups. Strategic political frames are examined to understand how those vying for agency power may attract support from agents in the activity system. Liquid frames are also explored to understand the cynical nature of populism and its contribution to institutional devolution.

A political development theory result that identifies the conditions under which formal political groups can promote frames that may attract support from agents from who they require support to gain agency power status. A model is produced for political development. It explains populism as a thin ideology with a collectivist orientation that uses liquid framing, and it introduces its individualist counterpart, political synergism.

The implication of this research is that it will allow empirical methods to be used that potentially enable political outcomes in complex political environments to be anticipated, given additional appropriate measurement criteria.

Linking agency and institutional theory to explain the process of development is new, as is its application to the political development process in a political landscape. As part of this linkage, it has been shown how Bauman’s concept of liquidity relates to Sorokin’s ideas of socio-cultural change.

Complex systems adapt to survive, but little comparative literature exists on various approaches. Adaptive complex systems are generic, this referring to propositions concerning their bounded instability, adaptability and viability. Two classes of adaptive complex system theories exist: hard and soft. Hard complexity theories include Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and Viability Theory, and softer theories, which we refer to as Viable Systems Theories (VSTs), that include Management Cybernetics at one extreme and Humanism at the other. This paper has a dual purpose distributed across two parts. In Part 1, the purpose of this paper is to identify the conditions for the complementarity of the two classes of theory. In Part 2, the purpose is to explore (in part using Agency Theory) the two classes of theory and their proposed complexity continuum.

A detailed analysis of the literature permits a distinction between hard and softer approaches towards modelling complex social systems. Hard theories are human-incommensurable, while soft ones are human-commensurable, therefore more closely related to the human condition. The characteristics that differentiate between hard and soft approaches are identified.

Hard theories are more restrictive than the softer theories. The latter can embrace degrees of “softness” and it is explained how hard and soft approaches can be mixed, sometimes creating Harmony.

There are very few explorations of the relationship between hard and soft approaches to complexity theory, and even fewer that draw in the notion of harmony.