This article presents conceptual arguments and empirical evidence consistent with a unified conception of human judgment. It identifies several continuous parameters which intersections at specific values determine the judgmental impact of the information given. The unimodel serves as an overarching framework subsuming a plethora of theoretical notions and empirical findings related to binary distinctions between associative versus rule based, automatic versus deliberative, intuitive versus rational, heuristic versus Systematic, and central versus peripheral modes of judgment. This perspective simplifies the depiction of human judgment processes and highlights its critical determinants.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kruglanski et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: