The DBO theory of action and distributed cognition

Abstract

The DBO (Desires, Beliefs and Opportunities) theory of action proposed by analytical sociologists aims to provide an action-theoretical basis for building explanatory theories in sociology. Peter Hedström claims that the DBO theory is realistic because it does not make assumptions that are known to be false or seriously incompatible with the current scientific understanding about the nature of human action and cognition. This article nevertheless aims to show that the DBO theory is not only incomplete but also that its background assumptions are unrealistic, in the sense that they do not fit with the distributed nature of action-related cognition, which has recently become a growing topic of interest in cognitive sciences. The author also indicates that the neglect of the distributed and embodied aspects of cognition in the DBO theory leads to various biases in the process of constructing mechanism-based explanations in social sciences. Finally, an alternative approach to action theory is sketched on the basis of this critique.

Desires, Beliefs and Opportunities in decision-making of secondary students heading to university. Actions and reactions regarding the implementation of the ranking score in the admission system.

“…En el contexto de la presente investigación, intentamos abordar diversos componentes que contextualizan los procesos de decisión asociados al ámbito educativo como lo hace Gambetta (1987), tales como elementos subjetivos e interaccionales (Manzo, 2011;Manzo, 2013). En este sentido, la comparación que subyace en la obra de Gambetta entre restricciones y posibilidades (estructuras y decisiones) es muy ilustrativa de las propuestas teóricas de la sociología analítica contenidas en Aguiar, De Francisco y Noguera (2009), Barbera (2006), Goldthorpe (1998) Respecto de estas últimas, y en lo relacionado a acciones y decisiones, para complementar la aproximación neoinstitucionalista provista por el ICA (Scharpf, 1997) y que nos remite al componente de naturaleza más estructural de la política pública, el presente estudio intenta poner en juego algunos de los contenidos del modelo de inspiración accionalista DBO (Desires, Beliefs & Opportunities), propuesto por Hedström en su descripción de los principios de sociología analítica y contenidos en su obra del año 2005 (Dissecting the Social), revisados también por Bornmann (2010) y Kaidesoja (2012). De manera sucinta, el modelo DBO intenta explicar la forma en la que los deseos y las creencias, asociados a estructuras de oportunidades, son capaces de traducirse en acciones, dentro de las cuales también deben contarse las decisiones de los individuos.…”

Material Parts in Social Structures

“…The navigation system, I argue, is a social structure with both human and non-human material parts that has emergent causal powers as a consequence of the way these parts interact within it. While Kaidesoja has made a similar point, he confines his attention to cognitive properties, while this paper proposes that we can generalise the argument to a much wider set of causal powers (Kaidesoja 2012). If this is so then Hutchins has given us a model, and a carefully explained empirical example, of how we could think of social structures, or at least some of them, as depending equally on both human and non-human contributions.…”

Analytical Sociology and Symbolic Interactionism: Bridging the Intra-disciplinary Divide

“…Although the above-mentioned amendments represent important steps in the right direction, they are by themselves insufficient and leave the DBO-model in need of much further elaboration. Some of the shortcomings of the model have been pointed out by analytical sociologists themselves who, on the whole, appear to receive it with what can be labeled as skeptical enthusiasm (Barbera, 2006;Edling, 2012;Gross, 2009;Kaidesoja, 2012;Little, 2012;Manzo, 2010;Mayntz, 2004). Unsurprisingly, the model is evaluated within this community out of the defining premises of analytical sociology and is mainly criticized for lacking analytical specification and empirical validation.…”