ArticlePloS one2018
To IMPRES or to EXPRES? Exploiting comparative judgments to measure and visualize implicit and explicit preferences.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
We introduce an adaptation of the affect misattribution procedure (AMP), called the implicit preference scale (IMPRES). Participants who complete the IMPRES indicate their preference for one of two, simultaneously presented Chinese ideographs. Each ideograph is preceded by a briefly presented prime stimulus that is irrelevant to the task. Participants are hypothesized to prefer the ideograph that is preceded by the prime they prefer. In the present research, the IMPRES was designed to capture racial attitudes (preferences for white versus black faces) and age-related attitudes (preferences for young versus old faces). Results suggest that (a) the reliability of the IMPRES is similar (or even better) than the reliability of the AMP and (b) that the IMPRES and the AMP correlate significantly. However, neither the AMP nor the IMPRES were found to predict attitude-related outcome behavior (i.e., the preparedness to donate money to a charity benefiting ethnic minorities vs. the elderly). Further research is thus necessary to establish the validity of the IMPRES. Finally, we demonstrated that, unlike the AMP, the IMPRES allows for an in-depth assessment of unanticipated response patterns and/or extreme observations using multidimensional scaling algorithms.
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.