ArticleEurope's journal of psychology2026
"Old Wine in a New Bottle": Are Different Terminologies on Dual Processing Conceptually the Same?
Article in Europe's journal of psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Dual processing theory is among the most influential theories in cognitive psychology. It distinguishes two kinds of human thinking: one that is fast, intuitive, and effortless; and the other that is slow, deliberate, and effortful. Interestingly, these two types of human thinking have been described using many different terms by various researchers. How similar or different are these terms and related constructs? Methods: We analyzed the dual-processing literature, conducted a thought experiment, and analyses using the machine learning model BERT (SCEPTER) to compare the similarity and difference between the terms and constructs. Results: Findings show that, though these terms are lexically different, what researchers describe is, at the core, very similar. The various terms are 'old wine in a new bottle.' Conclusions: We provide possible reasons for this coinage of terminology and present a rationale for careful deliberation before introducing new terms.
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.