Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40124760›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025

The Dual Process model: the effect of cognitive load on the ascription of intentionality.

Micaela Maria Zucchelli, Nicola Matteucci Armandi Avogli Trotti, Andrea Pavan, Laura Piccardi, Raffaella Nori

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Micaela Maria ZucchelliDepartment of Psychology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Nicola Matteucci Armandi Avogli TrottiDepartment of Psychology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Andrea PavanDepartment of Psychology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Laura PiccardiDepartment of Psychology, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Raffaella NoriDepartment of Psychology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The classic Dual Process model posits that decision-making is determined by the interplay of an intuitive System 1 and a logical System 2. In contrast, the revised model suggests that intuition can also be logical. The Cognitive load paradigm has been used to distinguish underlying rational and intuitive processes, as it tends to lead to the use of heuristics over reasoning. Through two studies, we aimed to investigate the impact of two increasing levels of extraneous cognitive load on intentionality decision-making by comparing the two decision-making models. Methods: The task required participants to attribute intentionality to negative and positive side effects, which were foreseeable but not deliberately intended. This compared an intuitive response, focused on the outcome, with a logical one, focused on the absence of intention. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the six experimental conditions, each with varying cognitive loads (high cognitive load vs. low cognitive load vs. no cognitive load) and scenario valence (negative vs. positive). In Study 1, cognitive load was made by introducing a concurrent task during intentionality attribution, whereas in Study 2, cognitive load was accomplished by associating the dual-task with a time pressure paradigm. Participants under cognitive load were expected to exhibit cognitive resource exhaustion, providing greater judgments of intentionality for negative outcomes and lower for positive ones, due to the dominance of intuition, compared to evaluations provided by participants who were not under cognitive load. Results: In both studies, cognitive load reduced intentionality attributions for positive side effects compared to the no-load condition, with response times being longer for positive side effects than for negative ones. Conclusion: This pattern suggests System 2 intervention for positive outcomes and System 1 dominance for negative ones. Therefore, introducing cognitive load enabled us to identify the different roles of the two decision systems in intentionality attribution.

Indexed as

cognitive loadDual Process modelintentionalityKnobe effectside effect

Identifiers

PMID40124760
PMCPMC11927432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.