ReviewFrontiers in psychology2026
Dual-process theories beyond cognitive psychology: psychodynamic, clinical, and neurobiological perspectives.
Review in Frontiers in 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
Dual-process theories (DPT) have become an influential framework for understanding human cognition by distinguishing between two modes of mental processing, often described through distinctions such as automatic vs. controlled, intuitive vs. analytic, or unconscious vs. conscious. Although initially developed within cognitive psychology, this review considers DPT in relation to psychodynamic, clinical, and neurobiological perspectives to explore their complementary contributions to understanding human mental functioning. From a psychodynamic perspective, particular attention is given to primary process thinking and its potential contribution to contemporary debates concerning the nature and organization of different modes of processing. We suggest that primary process has been conceptualized in two broad ways: as a qualitatively distinct mode of processing or as a less differentiated form of a shared underlying mental organization, with potential implications for how different modes of mental processing are understood and investigated. Clinical perspectives further demonstrate the relevance of these theories across a range of phenomena-from psychosomatic symptoms to depression-as well as in clinical decision-making and psychotherapeutic change. Neurobiological findings provide insights into different aspects of dual-process distinctions and highlight the involvement of dynamically interacting brain networks rather than discrete and independent neural systems. Rather than proposing direct equivalences between constructs and findings from different fields, this review argues that DPT provides a useful conceptual framework for examining related psychological phenomena across psychodynamic, clinical, and neurobiological perspectives. In doing so, it may facilitate interdisciplinary research and contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of human mental functioning and psychopathology.
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.