Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33481838›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Physiological responses to proposals during dyadic decision-making conversations.

Melisa Stevanovic, Samuel Tuhkanen, Milla Järvensivu, Emmi Koskinen, Enikö Savander, Kaisa Valkia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Melisa StevanovicFaculty of Social Sciences, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.
Samuel TuhkanenDepartment of Digital Humanities, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Milla JärvensivuFaculty of Social Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Emmi KoskinenFaculty of Social Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Enikö SavanderDepartment of Psychiatry, Päijät-Häme Central Hospital, Lahti, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-0249-0587
Kaisa ValkiaFaculty of Social Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A novel conversation-analytically informed paradigm was used to examine how joint decision-making interaction, with its various types of proposal sequences, is reflected in the physiological responses of participants. Two types of dyads-dyads with one depressed and one non-depressed participant (N = 15) and dyads with two non-depressed participants (N = 15)-engaged in a series of conversational joint decision-making tasks, during which we measured their skin conductance (SC) responses. We found that the participants' SC response rates were higher and more synchronized during proposal sequences than elsewhere in the conversation. Furthermore, SC response rates were higher when the participant was in the role of a proposal speaker (vs. a proposal recipient), and making a proposal was associated with higher SC response rates for participants with depression (vs. participants without depression). Moreover, the SC response rates in the proposal speaker were higher when the recipient accepted (vs. not accepted) the proposal. We interpret this finding with reference to accepting responses suggesting a commitment to future action, for which the proposal speaker may feel specifically responsible for. A better understanding of the physiological underpinnings of joint decision-making interaction may help improve democratic practices in contexts where certain individuals experience challenges in this regard.

Indexed as

Social InteractionAdultDecision MakingDepressionFemaleGalvanic Skin ResponseHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID33481838
PMCPMC7822527

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.