ArticleFrontiers in psychology2018
Evaluative Processing of Food Images: A Conditional Role for Viewing in Preference Formation.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Speed is associated with polarization during subjective evaluation: no tradeoff, but an effect of the ease of processing.Cognitive neurodynamics · 2024Article
- The framing of choice nudges prolonged processing in the evaluation of food images.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Setting the space for deliberation in decision-making.Cognitive neurodynamics · 2021Review
- Recent updates of eye movement abnormalities in patients with schizophrenia: A scoping review.Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 2021Article
- Contribution of Eye-Tracking to Study Cognitive Impairments Among Clinical Populations.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- The Role of Temperature in Moral Decision-Making: Limited Reproducibility.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Editorial: Consumer's Behavior Beyond Self-Report.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Tracking the Influence of Predictive Cues on the Evaluation of Food Images: Volatility Enables Nudging.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Urgency Promotes Affective Disengagement: Effects From Bivalent Cues on Preference Formation for Abstract Images.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Transparent Windows on Food Packaging Do Not Always Capture Attention and Increase Purchase Intention.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Evaluative Processing of Food Images: Longer Viewing for Indecisive Preference Formation.Frontiers in psychology · 2019Article
- Active Confirmation Bias in the Evaluative Processing of Food Images.Scientific reports · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous research suggested a role of gaze in preference formation, not merely as an expression of preference, but also as a causal influence. According to the gaze cascade hypothesis, the longer subjects look at an item, the more likely they are to develop a preference for it. However, to date the connection between viewing and liking has been investigated predominately with self-paced viewing conditions in which the subjects were required to select certain items from simultaneously presented stimuli on the basis of perceived visual attractiveness. Such conditions might promote a default, but non-mandatory connection between viewing and liking. To explore whether the connection is separable, we examined the evaluative processing of single naturalistic food images in a 2 × 2 design, conducted completely within subjects, in which we varied both the type of exposure (self-paced versus time-controlled) and the type of evaluation (non-exclusive versus exclusive). In the self-paced exclusive evaluation, longer viewing was associated with a higher likelihood of a positive evaluation. However, in the self-paced non-exclusive evaluation, the trend reversed such that longer viewing durations were associated with lesser ratings. Furthermore, in the time-controlled tasks, both with non-exclusive and exclusive evaluation, there was no significant relationship between the viewing duration and the evaluation. The overall pattern of results was consistent for viewing times measured in terms of exposure duration (i.e., the duration of stimulus presentation on the screen) and in terms of actual gaze duration (i.e., the amount of time the subject effectively gazed at the stimulus on the screen). The data indicated that viewing does not intrinsically lead to a higher evaluation when evaluating single food images; instead, the relationship between viewing duration and evaluation depends on the type of task. We suggest that self-determination of exposure duration may be a prerequisite for any influence from viewing time on evaluative processing, regardless of whether the influence is facilitative. Moreover, the purported facilitative link between viewing and liking appears to be limited to exclusive evaluation, when only a restricted number of items can be included in a chosen set.
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.