Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41688782›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2026

The Decision Process Scale (DPS): Self-report measures of reliance on rules, cost-benefit reasoning, intuition, and deliberation in (moral) decision-making.

Vanessa Cheung, Maximilian Maier, Falk Lieder

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Vanessa Cheung *Department of Experimental Psychology, University College London, London, England. vanessa.cheung.14@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-0849-9815
Maximilian Maier *Department of Experimental Psychology, University College London, London, England.
Falk LiederMax Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems, Tübingen, Germany.

Funding

Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems GR1400
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding how people make decisions in specific situations is a central challenge in (moral) psychology research. Yet there are no existing self-report scales for measuring the process of decision-making in individual dilemmas (as opposed to general moral attitudes or beliefs about moral decision-making). We address this gap by devising new self-report measures of several of the processes by which people make moral decisions and validate them using realistic moral dilemmas, including six new vignettes that we developed. The resulting 12-item Decision Process Scale (DPS) can be used to measure how much people rely on rules versus cost-benefit reasoning and how much they rely on intuition versus deliberation in the specific moral dilemmas they face in a laboratory experiment or in the real world.

Indexed as

Decision MakingIntuitionMoralsSelf ReportAdultCost-Benefit AnalysisEthical DilemmasFemaleHumansMaleDecision-making stylesDeontologyIntuition versus deliberationMoral decision-makingMoral dilemmasProcess measuresUtilitarianism

Identifiers

PMID41688782
PMCPMC12904929

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.