ArticleF1000Research2016
Processes of believing: Where do they come from? What are they good for?
Article in F1000Research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mindfulness in the focus of the neurosciences - The contribution of neuroimaging to the understanding of mindfulness.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2022Pooled it
- Believing processes during the COVID-19 pandemic in individuals with bipolar disorder: An exploratory study.World journal of psychiatry · 2022Article
- Believing and Appraising in Context: Cognizing Experiences as Events.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Cognitive Bias: Phylogenesis or Ontogenesis?Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Pathways and crossroads to creditions: Insights from a retrospective view.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Believing and social interactions: effects on bodily expressions and personal narratives.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2022Article
- Measuring extraordinary experiences and beliefs: A validation and reliability study.F1000Research · 2019Observational
- Violations of Expectations As Matter for the Believing Process.Frontiers in psychology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the long scholarly discourse in Western theology and philosophy on religion, spirituality, and faith, explanations of what a belief and what believing is are still lacking. Recently, cognitive neuroscience research addressed the human capacity of believing. We present evidence suggesting that believing is a human brain function which results in probabilistic representations with attributes of personal meaning and value and thereby guides individuals' behavior. We propose that the same mental processes operating on narratives and rituals constitute belief systems in individuals and social groups. Our theoretical model of believing is suited to account for secular and non-secular belief formation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.