Linked Bibliography of Universal DSRP Cognitive Patterns

Bibliographic references representing evidence for DSRP as universal cognitive pattern/structure

Distinctions

• • Spencer Brown G. Laws of Form. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.; 1969. 
  • Olson ER. Why Is There Something Instead of Nothing?  [Video]. Scientific American. 11 Mar 2014. Accessed 20 Jul 2019. 
  • Euler L. The Seven Bridges Problem. 1736. 
  • Kolata G. Studying Learning In The Womb. Science. 1984;225: 302–303. 
  • Quinn PC, Brown CR, Streppa ML. Perceptual organization of complex visual configurations by young infants. Infant Behavior and Development. 1997. pp. 35–46. doi:10.1016/s0163-6383(97)90059-x  
  • Newman RS, Jusczyk PW. The cocktail party effect in infants.  Percept Psychophys. 1996;58: 1145–1156. 
  • Gauthier I, Tarr MJ. Becoming a “Greeble” expert: exploring mechanisms for face recognition. Vision Res. 1997;37: 1673–1682. doi:10.1016/s0042-6989(96)00286-6 
  • Aubin T, Jouventin P. Cocktail-party effect in king penguin colonies. Proceedings Of The Royal Society Of London Series B-Biological Sciences. 1998;265: 1665–1673. 
  • Badre D. Cognitive control, hierarchy, and the rostro-caudal organization of the frontal lobes. Trends Cogn Sci. 2008;12: 193–200. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.02.004 
  • Bukach CM, Gauthier I, Tarr MJ, Kadlec H, Barth S, Ryan E, et al.Does acquisition of Greeble expertise in prosopagnosia rule out a domain-general deficit? Neuropsychologia. 2012;50: 289–304. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.11.023 
  • Rajalingham R, DiCarlo JJ. Reversible Inactivation of Different Millimeter-Scale Regions of Primate IT Results in Different Patterns of Core Object Recognition Deficits. Neuron. 2019;102: 493–505.e5. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2019.02.001 
  • Clark T.  National boundaries, border zones, and marketing strategy: A conceptual framework and theoretical model of secondary boundary effects. 1994.
  • Coye D. The Sneakers/Tennis Shoes Boundary. American Speech. 1986. p. 366. doi:10.2307/454615 
  • Powers E, Cabrera L, Cabrera D. Distinguishing “Nerd” vs. “Geek.” 2015 
  • Peterson MA, Skow-Grant E. Memory and Learning in Figure–Ground Perception. Psychology of Learning and Motivation. 2003. pp. 1–35. doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(03)01001-6 
  • De Luca Picione R, Valsiner J. Psychological Functions of Semiotic Borders in Sense-Making: Liminality of Narrative Processes. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2017;13: 532–547. doi:10.5964/ejop.v13i3.1136 
  • Glanville R. The Self And The Other: The Purpose Of Distinction. 
  • Rodolphe Durand Sameness and Otherness: Enriching Organizational Change Theories with Philosophical Considerations on the Same and the Other. The Academy of Management Review. 2006. pp. 93–114. 
  • Gillette JM. Boundary Lines of Social Phenomena. American Journal of Sociology. 1925. pp. 585–593. doi:10.1086/213742 
  • Al HT et. Classification and quantitative judgement. 1963. 
  • Christie Davies. Sexual Taboos and Social Boundaries. Am J Sociol. 1982;87: 1032–1063. 
  • Langer EJ, Bashner RS, Chanowitz B. Decreasing prejudice by increasing discrimination. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1985;49: 113–120.
  • Perdue CW, Dovidio JF, Gurtman MB, Tyler RB. Us and them: Social categorization and the process of intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1990. pp. 475–486. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.59.3.475 
  • Leudar I, Marsland V. On membership categorization: “us”, “them” and “doing violence” in political discourse.  
  • Young J. On Insiders (Emic) and Outsiders (Etic): Views of Self, and Othering. Systemic Practice and Action Research. 2005;18: 151–162. doi:10.1007/s11213-005-4155-8 
  • Midgley G, Pinzón LA. Boundary critique and its implications for conflict prevention. Journal of the Operational Research Society. 2011. pp. 1543–1554. doi:10.1057/jors.2010.76 
  • Bentley SV, Greenaway KH, Haslam SA. Cognition in context: Social inclusion attenuates the psychological boundary between self and other. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2017;73: 42–49. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2017.06.008 

• • Simon HA. The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 1962. 
  • Anderson JR. The adaptive nature of human categorization. Psychological Review. 1991. pp. 409–429. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.98.3.409 
  • Pellegrino. Categorization in single neurons. 2001. 
  • Muehlhaus J, Heim S, Altenbach F, Chatterjee A, Habel U, Sass K. Deeper insights into semantic relations: an fMRI study of part-whole and functional associations. Brain Lang. 2014;129: 30–42. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2014.01.003 
  • Montoro PR, Luna D, Ortells JJ. Subliminal Gestalt grouping: evidence of perceptual grouping by proximity and similarity in absence of conscious perception. Conscious Cogn. 2014;25: 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2014.01.004 
  • Lewin K. Dynamic Theory of Personality. 1935. 
  • Moony. Perception, language, and the part-whole problem. 1951. 
  • Ackoff RL. Towards a System of Systems Concepts. Management Science. 1971. pp. 661–671. doi:10.1287/mnsc.17.11.661 
  • Solomon KO, Medin DL, Lynch E. Concepts do more than categorize. Trends Cogn Sci. 1999;3: 99–105. 
  • Tversky B, Hemenway K. Objects, parts, and categories. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1984;113: 169–197. 
  • Glushko RJ, Maglio PP, Matlock T, Barsalou LW. Categorization in the wild. Trends Cogn Sci. 2008;12: 129–135. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.01.007 
  • Liberman Z, Woodward AL, Kinzler KD. The Origins of Social Categorization. Trends Cogn Sci. 2017;21: 556–568. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2017.04.004 
  • Fisher M, Keil FC. The Binary Bias: A Systematic Distortion in the Integration of Information. Psychol Sci. 2018;29: 1846–1858. doi:10.1177/0956797618792256 

• • Wiener N. “Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine” (Book Review). 1951. 
  • Clement CA, Falmagne RJ. Logical reasoning, world knowledge, and mental imagery: interconnections in cognitive processes. Mem Cognit. 1986;14: 299–307. 
  • Gopnik A, Glymour C, Sobel DM, Schulz LE, Kushnir T, Danks D. A theory of causal learning in children: causal maps and Bayes nets. Psychol Rev. 2004;111: 3–32. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.111.1.3 
  • Greene AJ. Making Connections. Scientific American Mind. 2010;21: 22–29. doi:10.2307/24943081 
  • Chersi F, Ferro M, Pezzulo G, Pirrelli V. Topological self-organization and prediction learning support both action and lexical chains in the brain. Top Cogn Sci. 2014;6: 476–491. doi:10.1111/tops.12094 
  • Ferry AL, Hespos SJ, Gentner D. Prelinguistic Relational Concepts: Investigating Analogical Processing in Infants. Child Dev. 2015;86: 1386–1405. doi:10.1111/cdev.12381 
  • Kominsky JF, Strickland B, Wertz AE, Elsner C, Wynn K, Keil FC. Categories and Constraints in Causal Perception. Psychol Sci. 2017;28: 1649–1662. doi:10.1177/0956797617719930 
  • Harris PL, German T, Mills P. Children’s use of counterfactual thinking in causal reasoning. Cognition. 1996;61: 233–259. 
  • Mascalzoni E, Regolin L, Vallortigara G, Simion F. The cradle of causal reasoning: newborns’ preference for physical causality. Dev Sci. 2013;16: 327–335. doi:10.1111/desc.12018 
  • Rolfs M, Dambacher M, Cavanagh P. Visual adaptation of the perception of causality. Curr Biol. 2013;23: 250–254. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2012.12.017 
  • Schulz LE, Gopnik A. Causal learning across domains. Dev Psychol. 2004;40: 162–176. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.162 
  • Dhamala M. What is the nature of causality in the brain? - Inherently probabilistic: Comment on “Foundational perspectives on causality in large-scale brain networks” by M. Mannino and S.L. Bressler. Physics of life reviews. 2015. pp. 139–140. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2015.10.019 

• • Sanefuji W, Haryu E. Preschoolers’ Development of Theory of Mind: The Contribution of Understanding Psychological Causality in Stories. Front Psychol. 2018;9: 955. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00955 
  • Marvin. The Early Development of Conceptual Perspective Taking_ Distinguishing among Multiple Perspectives. Child Development. 1976. pp. 511–514. 
  • Premack D, Woodruff G. Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behav Brain Sci. 1978;1: 515–526. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00076512 
  • Baron-Cohen. Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”? 1985. 
  • Vallar G, Lobel E, Galati G, Berthoz A, Pizzamiglio L, Le Bihan D. A fronto-parietal system for computing the egocentric spatial frame of reference in humans. Exp Brain Res. 1999;124: 281–286. 
  • Perrine R, Jean D. How would you feel versus how do you think she would feel? A neuroimaging study of perspective-taking with social emotions. J Cogn Neurosci. 2004;16: 988. 
  • Russell J, Alexis D, Clayton N. Episodic future thinking in 3- to 5-year-old children: the ability to think of what will be needed from a different point of view. Cognition. 2010;114: 56–71. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.08.013 
  • Rakoczy H, Wandt R, Thomas S, Nowak J, Kunzmann U. Theory of mind and wisdom: The development of different forms of perspective-taking in late adulthood. Br J Psychol. 2018;109: 6–24. doi:10.1111/bjop.12246 
  • Mafessoni F, Lachmann M. The complexity of understanding others as the evolutionary origin of empathy and emotional contagion. Sci Rep. 2019;9: 5794. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-41835-5 
  • Tversky A, Kahneman D. The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, New Series. 1981;211: 453–458. 
  • Schober. Spatial perspective-taking in conversation. 1993. 
  • Bateson. Perspective Taking: Imagining how another would feels versus imagining how you would feel. 1997. 
  • Knowles ML. Social rejection increases perspective taking. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2014;55: 126–132. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2014.06.008 
  • Cavallo A, Ansuini C, Capozzi F, Tversky B, Becchio C. When Far Becomes Near. Psychol Sci. 2017;28: 69–79. doi:10.1177/0956797616672464  
  • Neale MA, Bazerman MH. The Role of Perspective-Taking Ability in Negotiating under Different Forms of Arbitration. Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 1983. p. 378. doi:10.2307/2523017 
  • Galinsky AD, Moskowitz GB. Perspective-taking: decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000;78: 708–724. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.78.4.708 
  • Takaku S, Weiner B, Ohbuchi KI. A cross-cultural examination of the effects of apology and perspective taking on forgiveness. J Lang Soc Psychol. 2001;20: 144–166. 
  • Parker SK, Axtell CM. Seeing Another Viewpoint: Antecedents and Outcomes of Employee Perspective Taking. Academy of Management Journal. 2001. pp. 1085–1100. doi:10.5465/3069390 
  • Epley N, Keysar B, Van Boven L, Gilovich T. Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004;87: 327–339. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.327 
  • Davis MH, Soderlund T, Cole J, Gadol E, Kute M, Myers M, et al. Cognitions associated with attempts to empathize: how do we imagine the perspective of another? Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2004;30: 1625–1635. doi:10.1177/0146167204271183 
  • Harwood. Conflicting Emotions: The connection between affective perspective taking and theory of mind. 2006. 
  • Tversky B, Hard BM. Embodied and disembodied cognition: spatial perspective-taking. Cognition. 2009;110: 124–129. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.10.008 
  • Wang CS, Tai K, Ku G, Galinsky AD, Urgesi C. Perspective-Taking Increases Willingness to Engage in Intergroup Contact. 2014. doi:10.1371/ 

• • Bateson G. Form Substance and Difference. 1970. 
  • Bertalanffy. The history and status of general systems theory. 1972. 
  • Rittel HWJ, Webber MM. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences. 1973. pp. 155–169. doi:10.1007/bf01405730 
  • Marchal JH. On the Concept of a System. Philos Sci. 1975;42: 448–468. 
  • Goguen JA, Varela FJ. Systems And Distinctions; Duality And Complementarity†. Int J Gen Syst. 1979;5: 31–43. doi:10.1080/03081077908960886 
  • Ivan M, Kondo K, Yang H, Kim W, Valiando 1. Jennifer, Ohh M, et al. HIFa Targeted for VHL-Mediated Destruction by Proline Hydroxylation: Implications for O Sensing. Science. 2001;292. 
  • Mareschal D, Quinn PC. Categorization in infancy. Trends Cogn Sci. 2001;5: 443–450. 
  • Ashby FG, Ell SW, Waldron EM. Procedural learning in perceptual categorization. Mem Cognit. 2003;31: 1114–1125. 
  • Sloutsky VM. The role of similarity in the development of categorization. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003;7: 246–251. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00109-8 
  • Lewandowsky S, Roberts L, Yang L-X. Knowledge partitioning in categorization: boundary conditions. Mem Cognit. 2006;34: 1676–1688. 
  • Lupyan G. The conceptual grouping effect: categories matter (and named categories matter more). Cognition. 2008;108: 566–577. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.03.009 
  • van Dijk J, Kerkhofs R, van Rooij I, Haselager P. Special Section: Can There Be Such a Thing as Embodied Embedded Cognitive Neuroscience? Theory Psychol. 2008;18: 297–316. doi:10.1177/0959354308089787 
  • Mahon BZ, Caramazza A. Concepts and categories: a cognitive neuropsychological perspective. Annu Rev Psychol. 2009;60: 27–51. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163532 
  • Tarrant M, Calitri R, Weston D. Social identification structures the effects of perspective taking. Psychol Sci. 2012;23: 973–978. doi:10.1177/0956797612441221 
  • Havy M, Waxman SR. Naming influences 9-month-olds’ identification of discrete categories along a perceptual continuum. Cognition. 2016;156: 41–51. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2016.07.011 
  • Boisseau RP, Vogel D, Dussutour A. Habituation in non-neural organisms: evidence from slime moulds. Proc Biol Sci. 2016;283. doi:10.1098/rspb.2016.0446 
  • Cabrera D, Cabrera L, Powers E. A Unifying Theory of Systems Thinking with Psychosocial Applications. Syst Res. 2015;32: 534–545. doi:10.1002/sres.2351