CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1Hermeneutics and Narrative IdentityPhilosophical Ethics and TheoryNarrative Theory and Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comment: Understanding Reasons Without Reenactment: Comment on Stueber

Hutto, Daniel D.·2012·Emotion Review
DOI 10.1177/1754073911421384
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This comment on Stueber’s article clarifies the nature of the core disagreement between his approach to understanding reasons and mine. The purely philosophical nature of the dispute is highlighted. It is argued that understanding someone’s narrative often suffices for understanding the person’s reasons in ordinary cases. It is observed that Stueber has yet to provide a compelling counter case. There is also a brief clarification of some of the empirical commitments of the narrative practice hypothesis.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1754073911421384

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199282609.001.0001 · DOI
  2. 10.7551/mitpress/5833.001.0001 · DOI
  3. 10.1177/1754073911421380 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1

Metadata

Authors
Hutto, D. D.
Affiliations
University of Hertfordshire (GB)
Corresponding author
Hutto, Daniel D.
ORCID
Hutto, Daniel D.
Venue
Emotion Review
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2012-01
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
66-67
ISSN
  • 1754-0739 (ISSN-L)
  • 1754-0747
DOI
10.1177/1754073911421384
OpenAlex
W2021232126
Cited by
1
References
1
Citations by year
2012: 1
FWCI
2.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Emotion Review (publishedVersion)
  • University of Hertfordshire Research Archive (University of Hertfordshire) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Hermeneutics and Narrative Identity
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Narrative Theory and Analysis
Keywords
reasons for action, reenactment, narrative comprehension, moral psychology

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: Comment: Understanding Reasons Without Reenactment: Comment on Stueber. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1754073911421384
The paper
Hutto, D. D. (2012). Comment: Understanding Reasons Without Reenactment: Comment on Stueber. Emotion Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073911421384