Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34240345›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2021

An event-coding account of attitudes.

Bernhard Hommel, Niek Stevenson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2021. 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

2 authors.

Bernhard HommelInstitute for Psychological Research and Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands. bh@bhommel.onmicrosoft.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4731-5125
Niek StevensonInstitute for Psychological Research and Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Funding

H2020 European Research Council ERC-2015-AdG-694722Province of Shandong 100 Talent Grant
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Attitudes (or opinions, preferences, biases, stereotypes) can be considered bindings of the perceptual features of the attitudes' object to affective codes with positive or negative connotations, which effectively renders them "event files" in terms of the Theory of Event Coding. We tested a particularly interesting implication of this theoretical account: that affective codes might "migrate" from one event file to another (i.e., effectively function as a component of one while actually being part of another), if the two files overlap in terms of other features. We tested this feature-migration hypothesis by having participants categorize pictures of fictitious outer space characters as members of two fictitious races by pressing a left or right key, and to categorize positive and negative pictures of the International Affective Picture System (IAPS) as positive and negative by using the same two keys. When the outer space characters were later rated for likability, members of the race that was categorized by means of the same key as positive IAPS pictures were liked significantly more than members of the race that was categorized with the same key as negative IAPS pictures - suggesting that affective feature codes from the event files for the IAPS pictures effectively acted as an ingredient of event files for the outer space characters that shared the same key. These findings were fully replicated in a second experiment in which the two races were replaced by two unfamiliar fonts. These outcomes are consistent with the claim that attitudes, opinions, and preferences are represented in terms of event files and created by feature binding.

Indexed as

AttitudeEmotionsHumansPhotic StimulationAttitudesOpinionSocial cognitionTheory of event coding

Identifiers

PMID34240345
PMCPMC8642321

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.