Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33899709›Full record

ArticleThe Behavioral and brain sciences2021

Increasing resolution in the mechanisms of resolve.

Adam Bulley, Daniel L Schacter

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Behavioral and brain sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Adam BulleyDepartment of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA02138adam_bulley@fas.harvard.edu; http://adambulley.org/dls@wjh.harvard.edu; https://scholar.harvard.edu/schacterlab/home.ORCID 0000-0001-8014-0078
Daniel L SchacterDepartment of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA02138adam_bulley@fas.harvard.edu; http://adambulley.org/dls@wjh.harvard.edu; https://scholar.harvard.edu/schacterlab/home.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ainslie offers an encompassing and compelling account of willpower, although his big-picture view comes occasionally at the cost of low resolution. We comment on ambiguity in the metacognitive and prospective mechanisms of resolve implicated in recursive self-prediction. We hope to show both the necessity and promise of specifying testable cognitive mechanisms of willpower.

Indexed as

MetacognitionHumans

Identifiers

PMID33899709

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.