ArticlePsychological review2024
A social inference model of idealization and devaluation.
Article in Psychological review, 2024. 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, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impressions about harm are formed rapidly and then refined, modulated by serotonin.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2024Trial
- Psychosocial functioning in personality disorders.Borderline personality disorder and emotion dysregulation · 2025Review
- The role of affective states in computational psychiatry.The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology · 2025Review
- Self-other generalisation shapes social interaction and is disrupted in borderline personality disorder.eLife · 2025Article
- Using computational models of learning to advance cognitive behavioral therapy.Communications psychology · 2025Review
- Equity in eating disorders: a dialectical approach to stigma, expertise, and the coproduction of knowledge.Journal of eating disorders · 2025Article
- Jumping to attributions during social evaluation.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Epistemic Communities under Active Inference.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
People often form polarized beliefs, imbuing objects (e.g., themselves or others) with unambiguously positive or negative qualities. In clinical settings, this is referred to as dichotomous thinking or "splitting" and is a feature of several psychiatric disorders. Here, we introduce a Bayesian model of splitting that parameterizes a tendency to rigidly categorize objects as either entirely "Bad" or "Good," rather than to flexibly learn dispositions along a continuous scale. Distinct from the previous descriptive theories, the model makes quantitative predictions about how dichotomous beliefs emerge and are updated in light of new information. Specifically, the model addresses how splitting is context-dependent, yet exhibits stability across time. A key model feature is that phases of devaluation and/or idealization are consolidated by rationally attributing counter-evidence to
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.