The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Automaticity: A Theoretical and Conceptual Analysis.
Abstract
Several theoretical views of automaticity are discussed. Most of these suggest that automaticity should be diagnosed by looking at the presence of features such as unintentional, uncontrolled/uncontrollable, goal independent, autonomous, purely stimulus driven, unconscious, efficient, and fast. Contemporary views further suggest that these features should be investigated separately. The authors examine whether features of automaticity can be disentangled on a conceptual level, because only then is the separate investigation of them worth the effort. They conclude that the conceptual analysis of features is to a large extent feasible. Not all researchers agree with this position, however. The authors show that assumptions of overlap among features are determined by the other researchers' views of automaticity and by the models they endorse for information processing in general.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Posner, M. I. (1980) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/00335558008248231 · Cited by 9,670 · cited 1×
“The attention spotlight may randomly travel around the visual field until it crosses goal-relevant or novel stimuli, and it may then dwell on these stimuli (Fox, Russo, Bowles, & Dutton, 2001; Posner, 1980).”
BackgroundFodor, J. A. (1983) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001 · Cited by 7,734
Nagel, T. (1974) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/2183914 · Cited by 7,440
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.127 · Cited by 7,335
Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.54.7.493 · Cited by 5,478
Plans and the structure of behavior.
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960) · doi:10.1037/10039-000 · Cited by 4,630
Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind
Searle, J. R. (1983) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139173452 · Cited by 4,575
Broadbent, D. E. (1958) · doi:10.1037/10037-000 · Cited by 4,337
Harnad, S. (1990) · Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena · doi:10.1016/0167-2789(90)90087-6 · Cited by 4,235 · cited 4×
“Anderson, 1996) and symbols to be grounded in experience (Harnad, 1990).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAcquisition of cognitive skill
Anderson, J. R. (1982) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.89.4.369 · Cited by 3,663
Cited by
A Review of Self-regulated Learning: Six Models and Four Directions for Research
Panadero, E. (2017) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422 · Cited by 2,915
Webb, T. L., Miles, E., & Sheeran, P. (2012) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0027600 · Cited by 2,006
Mechanisms of attentional biases towards threat in anxiety disorders: An integrative review
Cisler, J. M., & Koster, E. H. W. (2010) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.003 · Cited by 1,753
The psychology of emotion regulation: An integrative review
Koole, S. L. (2009) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699930802619031 · Cited by 1,490
A new look at habits and the habit-goal interface.
Wood, W., & Neal, D. T. (2007) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.114.4.843 · Cited by 1,470
Metadata
- Authors
- Moors, A., & De Houwer, J.
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 2006
- Volume
- 132
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 297-326
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- OpenAlex
- W1973236197
- Cited by
- 1,417
- References
- 27
- FWCI
- 60.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Automaticity: A Theoretical and Conceptual Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.297
- The paper
- Moors, A., & De Houwer, J. (2006). Automaticity: A Theoretical and Conceptual Analysis. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.297
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
