What role does "discursive consciousness" play in decision-making? How does it interact with "practical consciousness?" These two questions constitute two important gaps in strong practice theory that extend from Pierre Bourdieu's habitus to Stephen Vaisey's sociological dual-process model and beyond. The goal of this paper is to provide an empirical framework that expands the sociological dual-process model in order to fill these gaps using models from cognitive neuroscience. In particular, I use models of memory and moral judgment that highlight the importance of executive functions and semantic memory. I outline each model as it pertains to the aforementioned gaps in strong practice theory. I then use the models from cognitive neuroscience to create an expanded dual-process model that addresses how and when conscious mental systems override and interact with subconscious mental systems in the use of cultural ends for decision-making. Finally, using this expanded model I address the sociological debate over the use of interview and survey data. My analysis reveals that surveys and interviews both elicit information encoded in declarative memory and differ primarily in the process of information retrieval that is required of respondents.

For nearly half a century, jobs have become increasingly characterized by employment insecurity. We examined the implications for sleep disturbance with cross-sectional data from the European Working Conditions Survey (2010). A group of 24,553 workers between the ages of 25 and 65 years in 31 European countries were asked to indicate whether they suffered from "insomnia or general sleep difficulties" in the past 12 months. We employed logistic regression to model the association between employment insecurity and sleep disturbance for all countries combined and each individual country. For all countries combined, employment insecurity increased the odds of reporting insomnia or general sleep difficulties in the past 12 months. Each unit increase in employment insecurity elevated the odds of sleep disturbance by approximately 47%. This finding was remarkably consistent across 27 of 31 European countries, including Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and UK. These results persisted with adjustments for age, gender, immigrant status, household size, partnership status, number of children, child care, elder care, education, earner status, precarious employment status, workplace sector, workplace tenure and workplace size. Employment insecurity was unrelated to sleep disturbance in four European countries: Malta, Poland, Portugal and Romania. Our research continues recent efforts to reveal the human costs associated with working in neoliberal postindustrial labour markets. Our analyses contribute to the external validity of previous research by exploring the impact of employment insecurity across European countries.

How do everyday people-or actors who do not occupy positions of political authority-legitimate political systems? Responding to this question, I use work from sociology, political science, and cognitive science to build a theory of "Popular Political Legitimation" (PPL)-defined as everyday people's legitimation of a political system. To answer how PPL happens, we must To answer how PPL happens, we must answer two sub-questions: 1) What are the processes of socialization through which individuals learn the norms, widely held beliefs, and values that create the perception of consensus about compliance with political power? 2) How do individuals subsequently use these norms, widely held beliefs, and/or values to help reproduce the perception of a consensus about the compliance with said power through legitimation? In this light, then, we see that a model of socialization is central to understanding how PPL happens. Thus, to understand legitimation we must understand how individuals are socialized into norms, widely held beliefs, and values (sub-question 1) and then how said norms, beliefs, and values are used for PPL (sub-question 2). The goal of article is thus to develop a model of PPL that incorporates a model of socialization. This article will formulate a theory for answering the how question of PPL by addressing sub-questions 1 and 2. I develop this model in four steps. First, I review eight literatures from sociology, political science, and political psychology that address political legitimation, justification, and rationalization. The core gap in these overlapping literatures is that they lack a model of socialization that explains legitimation-although many of these literatures include socialization as a motive or factor for legitimation. Next, I review the literature on political socialization from sociology and political science and find that it also does not explain how socialization generates legitimation. Third, I turn to neuroscience and psychology (for reviews see Greene, 2017; Cushman, 2020) to review models of socialization and rationalization. Here, I pay special attention to "dual-process models." Finally, I synthesize these literature reviews to develop a dual-process model that explains the link between political socialization and PPL. In my review, I outline different literatures in order to showcase their nuances. Each literature makes important contributions that distinguish it from other literatures. The review section then celebrates these nuances and particularities as they relate to the concepts of PPL and socialization. The theory building section, then, synthesizes these accounts-thus building theory by highlighting the commonalities of these different literatures in order to create a single narrative about political socialization and PPL. Ultimately, I build a dual-process model that theorizes political socialization and incorporates an account of how Type II processes are used for PPL. It is important to note that dual-process models each have a specific application and thus scope c...

Qualitative secondary analysis has generated heated debate regarding the epistemology of qualitative research. We argue that shifting to an abductive approach provides a fruitful avenue for qualitative secondary analysts who are oriented towards theory-building. However, the concrete implementation of abduction remains underdeveloped—especially for coding. We address this key gap by outlining a set of tactics for abductive analysis that can be applied for qualitative analysis. Our approach applies Timmermans and Tavory's ( Timmermans and Tavory 2012 ; Tavory and Timmermans 2014 ) three stages of abduction in three steps for qualitative (secondary) analysis: Generating an Abductive Codebook, Abductive Data Reduction through Code Equations, and In-Depth Abductive Qualitative Analysis. A key contribution of our article is the development of “code equations”—defined as the combination of codes to operationalize phenomena that span individual codes. Code equations are an important resource for abduction and other qualitative approaches that leverage qualitative data to build theory.