Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40861524›Full record

ArticleOpen mind : discoveries in cognitive science2025

Are You a Closet Dualist? Evidence From Brief Implicit Association Task.

Iris Berent, Alexzander Sansiveri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science, 2025. 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

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

2 authors.

Iris BerentDepartment of Psychology, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6424-7702
Alexzander SansiveriDepartment of Psychology, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Do people tacitly contrast minds and bodies? To find out, here, we gauge Dualism using a brief implicit association task. Participants were asked to determine whether a target word belonged to a category-attribute pair. Categories were either body or mind; attributes captured either physical properties of bodies (e.g., object/solid) or their converse (e.g., stuff/airy). Results from five experiments showed that physical properties selectively facilitated responses only to body (but not mind). In Experiments 3-5, responses to mind were further facilitated by airy (relative to solid). Together, these results suggest that people tacitly view the mind as ethereal, distinct from the physical body. Remarkably, this was the case even in participants who explicitly rejected Dualism. Dualism, then, is an implicit bias that persists despite explicit attitudes to the contrary. These conclusions shed light on why educated Western adults contrast minds and bodies.

Indexed as

core knowledgedualismimplicit association taskintuitive biasintuitive physicsintuitive psychology

Identifiers

PMID40861524
PMCPMC12373452

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.