ReviewFrontiers in psychology2019
Binary Theorizing Does Not Account for Action Control.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
- Negative affect-driven impulsivity as hierarchical model-based overgeneralization.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2025Review
- Motivational control of habits: A preregistered fMRI study.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Actions for addiction-Century-old concepts as possible game changers in addiction research, intervention, societal views, and policymaking.PLOS mental health · 2024Article
- The Willpower Paradox: Possible and Impossible Conceptions of Self-Control.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2023Article
- Associations do not energize behavior: on the forgotten legacy of Kurt Lewin.Psychological research · 2022Review
- GOALIATH: a theory of goal-directed behavior.Psychological research · 2022Article
- Towards an Ideology-Free, Truly Mechanistic Health Psychology.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Deliberation decreases the likelihood of expressing dominant responses.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Everyday thinking and scientific theorizing about human action control are equally driven by the apparently obvious contrast between will and habit or, in their more modern disguise: intentional and automatic processes, and model-based and model-free action planning. And yet, no comprehensive category system to systematically tell truly willed from merely habitual actions is available. As I argue, this is because the contrast is ill-conceived, because almost every single action is both willed and habitual, intentional and automatic, and model-based and model-free, simply because will and habit (and their successors) do not refer to alternative modes or pathways of action control but rather to different phases of action planning. I further discuss three basic misconceptions about action control that binary theorizing relies on: the assumption that intentional processes compete with automatic processes (rather than the former setting the stage for the latter), the assumption that action control is targeting processes (rather than representations of action outcomes), and the assumption that people follow only one goal at a time (rather than multiple goals). I conclude that (at least the present style of) binary theorizing fails to account for action control and should thus be replaced by a more integrative view.
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.