Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29672641›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2018

Inducing preference reversals in aesthetic choices for paintings: Introducing the contrast paradigm.

Zorry Belchev, Glen E Bodner, Jonathan M Fawcett

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Zorry BelchevDepartment of Psychology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Glen E BodnerDepartment of Psychology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7837-4879
Jonathan M FawcettDepartment of Psychology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding what leads people to reverse their choices is important in many domains. We introduce a contrast paradigm for studying reversals in choices-here between pairs of abstract paintings-implemented in both within-subject (Experiment 1; N = 320) and between-subject (Experiment 2; N = 384) designs. On each trial, participants chose between a pair of paintings. A critical pair of average-beauty paintings was presented before and after either a reversal or control block. In the reversal block, we made efforts to bias preference away from the chosen average-beauty painting (by pairing it with more-beautiful paintings) and toward the non-chosen average-beauty painting (by pairing it with less-beautiful paintings). Meta-analysis revealed more reversals after reversal blocks than after control blocks, though only when the biasing manipulations succeeded. A second meta-analysis revealed that reversals were generally more likely for participants who later misidentified their initial choice, demonstrating that memory for initial choices influences later choices. Thus, the contrast paradigm has utility both for inducing choice reversals and identifying their causes.

Indexed as

Behavior ControlPaintingsAdolescentAdultAlgorithmsBeautyChoice BehaviorConsumer BehaviorEstheticsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMotivationVisual PerceptionYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29672641
PMCPMC5908093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.