Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35849571›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Age and information preference: Neutral information sources in decision contexts.

Joshua L Rutt, Derek M Isaacowitz, Alexandra M Freund

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Joshua L RuttDepartment of Psychology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-3262-4964
Derek M IsaacowitzDepartment of Psychology, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Alexandra M FreundDepartment of Psychology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-9953-523X
University of Zurich · CHNortheastern University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Do adults of different ages differ in their focus on positive, negative, or neutral information when making decisions? Some research suggests an increasing preference for attending to and remembering positive over negative information with advancing age (i.e., an age-related positivity effect). However, these prior studies have largely neglected the potential role of neutral information. The current set of three studies used a multimethod approach, including self-reports (Study 1), eye tracking and choice among faces reflecting negative, neutral, or positive health-related (Study 2) and leisure-related information (Study 3). Gaze results from Studies 2 and 3 as well as self-reports from Study 1 showed a stronger preference for sources of neutral than for positive or negative information regardless of age. Findings also suggest a general preference for decision-relevant information from neutral compared to positive or negative sources. Focusing exclusively on the difference between positive (happy) and negative (angry) faces, results are in line with the age-related positivity effect (i.e., the difference in gaze duration between happy and angry faces was significantly larger for older than for younger adults). These findings underscore the importance of neutral information across age groups. Thus, most research on the positivity effect may be biased in that it does not consider the strong preference for neutral over positive information.

Indexed as

Facial ExpressionHappinessAngerDecision MakingEmotions

Identifiers

PMID35849571
PMCPMC9292105
OpenAlexW4285726202

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.