ArticleFrontiers in psychology2016
On Elementary Affective Decisions: To Like Or Not to Like, That Is the Question.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting subjective ratings of affect and comprehensibility with text features: a reader response study of narrative poetry.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Is badfiction processed differently by the human brain? An electrophysical study on reading experience.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Article
- Different routes to liking: how readers arrive at narrative evaluations.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2022Article
- Computational Models of Readers' Apperceptive Mass.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2022Article
- Neuroimaging of valence decisions in children and adults.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2021Article
- Neural correlates of affective contributions to lexical decisions in children and adults.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- From Abstract Symbols to Emotional (In-)Sights: An Eye Tracking Study on the Effects of Emotional Vignettes and Pictures.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- What Is the Difference? Rereading Shakespeare's Sonnets -An Eye Tracking Study.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Sentiment Analysis of Children and Youth Literature: Is There a Pollyanna Effect?Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Affective iconic words benefit from additional sound-meaning integration in the left amygdala.Human brain mapping · 2019Article
- Reading Shakespeare Sonnets: Combining Quantitative Narrative Analysis and Predictive Modeling -an Eye Tracking Study.Journal of eye movement research · 2019Article
- Sentiment Analysis for Words and Fiction Characters From the Perspective of Computational (Neuro-)Poetics.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2019Article
- Affective Congruence between Sound and Meaning of Words Facilitates Semantic Decision.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
- The Sound of Words Evokes Affective Brain Responses.Brain sciences · 2018Article
- Article
- Quantifying the Beauty of Words: A Neurocognitive Poetics Perspective.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2017Article
- Evoking and Measuring Identification with Narrative Characters - A Linguistic Cues Framework.Frontiers in psychology · 2017Article
- Affinity for Poetry and Aesthetic Appreciation of Joyful and Sad Poems.Frontiers in psychology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Perhaps the most ubiquitous and basic affective decision of daily life is deciding whether we like or dislike something/somebody, or, in terms of psychological emotion theories, whether the object/subject has positive or negative
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.