ArticleScientific reports2018
Situations restructure the congruency between action and valence in the action-evaluation effect.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The action-evaluation effect indicates that the processing of affective valence is affected by bodily actions. However, whether this effect is based on bodily simulation or situational priming is unknown. Moreover, P2 is a neural marker for this effect, suggesting the integration between valence and actions. Whether the P2 component is modulated by the situation is also unknown. In this study, we tested this effect in multiple situations to examine (1) whether this effect is dependent on the situation and (2) the amplitude of P2 is modulated by the situation. During the experiments, participants pushed/pulled computer mice to verify the valence of affective words in far-near (Experiment 1), front-back (Experiments 2a-2b), and up-down (Experiments 3a-3b) situations. Pulling (or pushing) mice responding to positive (or negative) words were treated as the congruent condition, while the opposite combination was the incongruent condition. In the far-near situation, participants' response times were faster and the amplitude of the P2 component was smaller in the congruent condition than the incongruent one; however, these results were reversed in other situations. The results suggested that the congruency of action-evaluation effect was restructured by the situation. Therefore, the action-evaluation effect might be based on situational priming.
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.