Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37462192›Full record

ArticleThe Behavioral and brain sciences2023

Explaining normative-deliberative gaps is essential to dual-process theorizing.

Edward J N Stupple, Linden J Ball

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Behavioral and brain sciences, 2023. 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.

Edward J N StuppleSchool of Psychology, College of Health, Psychology and Social Care, University of Derby, Derby, UK e.j.n.stupple@derby.ac.uk; https://www.derby.ac.uk/staff/ed-stupple/.ORCID 0000-0001-8545-9504
Linden J BallSchool of Psychology & Computer Science, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK lball@uclan.ac.uk; https://www.uclan.ac.uk/academics/professor-linden-ball.ORCID 0000-0002-5099-0124

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We discuss significant challenges to assumptions of exclusivity and highlight methodological and conceptual pitfalls in inferring deliberative processes from reasoning responses. Causes of normative-deliberative gaps are considered (e.g., disputed or misunderstood normative standards, strategy preferences, task interpretations, cognitive ability, mindware and thinking dispositions) and a soft normativist approach is recommended for developing the dual-process 2.0 architecture.

Indexed as

CognitionThinkingDissent and DisputesHumansProblem Solving

Identifiers

PMID37462192

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.