Is Deliberate Control of Behavior Rare? A Test of the Automaticity Dominance Perspective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The “automaticity dominance” perspective on cognition and behavior holds that automatic processes guide most behavior because deliberate processing is slow, inefficient, and therefore rare, typically restricted to “problematic” situations. Other scholars argue on both theoretical and empirical grounds that deliberate processing is more common. In this study, the authors test automaticity dominance by using multinomial processing tree models to examine donation decisions in an online sample of 1,027 respondents. Using a mixture of preregistered and exploratory analyses on both experimental and observational data, the authors find that (1) the processes underlying donation behavior execute efficiently and rapidly, but key processes are also controllable; (2) deliberate cognition increases in problematic situations but also operates when levels of problematicity are low; and (3) respondents deliberately control (at a minimum) a substantial minority of their decisions. These results indicate that deliberate cognition might not be as rare as an automaticity dominance perspective suggests.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it