ArticleIntegrative psychological & behavioral science2020
Studies in the mentality of literates: 2. Conceptual structure, cognitive inhibition and verbal regulation of behavior.
Article in Integrative psychological & behavioral science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quo Vadis, Cultural Psychology? Time to Become Psychology. Again.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2025Article
- If Gordon Allport was right, the Likert-type personality scales must be very poor descriptors of personality: he was right.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Vygotsky's, Leontiev's and Engeström's Cultural-Historical (Activity) Theories: Overview, Clarifications and Implications.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2022Article
- Beyond the Senses: How Self-Directed Speech and Word Meaning Structure Impact Executive Functioning and Theory of Mind in Individuals With Hearing and Language Problems.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- How word meaning structure relates to executive functioning and theory of mind in children with developmental language disorder: A multiple case study.Autism & developmental language impairmentsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
We studied cognitive inhibitory processes and verbal regulation of behavior of individuals with different levels of education (including adult illiterates) in Brazil (N = 136) and in Estonia (N = 560) with person-oriented methods of data analysis. Our aim was to discover whether dominant type of word meaning structure (WMS) can define the "Great Divide", the single breaking point that universally defines certain direction of subsequent to it cultural evolution. We found that both cognitive inhibition of irrelevant for the task at hand information or actions as well as correct activation of relevant information or actions is significantly more common in individuals who rely predominantly on logical concepts in their thinking. The higher level of education was also associated with more efficient cognitive inhibition and activation. The patterns of test performance also suggest that there can be a qualitative difference in the efficiency of cognitive inhibition-activation processes between everyday conceptual and logical conceptual thinkers. The former group of individuals may achieve much higher performance levels than any individual in the former group. We also discuss cognitive similarities and differences between adults with low or no formal education on the one hand and children and educated adults with brain damage on the other. The results are in agreement with the theory of unilineal hierarchic cultural evolution. Individual psychic development and cultural evolution can be both understood in terms of the WMS development.
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.