Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36046094›Full record

ArticleAffective science2022

On the Automatic Nature of Threat: Physiological and Evaluative Reactions to Survival-Threats Outside Conscious Perception.

David S March, Lowell Gaertner, Michael A Olson

Erratum issuedOpen access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Affective science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

David S MarchFlorida State University, Tallahassee, FL USA.
Lowell GaertnerUniversity of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN USA.
Michael A OlsonUniversity of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN USA.
University of Tennessee at Knoxville · USFlorida State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A neural architecture that preferentially processes immediate survival threats relative to other negatively and positively valenced stimuli presumably evolved to facilitate survival. The empirical literature on threat superiority, however, has suffered two problems: methodologically distinguishing threatening stimuli from negative stimuli and differentiating whether responses are sped and strengthened by threat superiority or delayed and diminished by conscious processing of nonthreatening stimuli. We addressed both problems in three within-subject studies that compared responses to empirically validated sets of threating, negative, positive, and neutral stimuli, and isolated threat superiority from the opposing effect of conscious attention by presenting stimuli outside conscious perception. Consistent with threat superiority, threatening stimuli elicited stronger skin-conductance (Study 1), startle-eyeblink (Study 2), and more negative downstream evaluative responses (Study 3) relative to the undifferentiated responses to negative, positive, and neutral stimuli. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42761-021-00090-6.

Indexed as

Skin-conductanceStartle eyeblinkSubliminalThreatValence

Identifiers

PMID36046094
PMCPMC9382976
OpenAlexW4205511979

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.