Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36220952›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2023

Nudge and bias in subjective ratings? The role of icon sets in determining ratings of icon characteristics.

Siné McDougall, Irene Reppa, Jacqui Taylor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2023. 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. Practice makes perfect, especially when doing what we like.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025
    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

3 authors.

Siné McDougallPsychology Department, Bournemouth University, Poole, UK. smcdougall@bournemouth.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-6595-1622
Irene ReppaSchool of Psychology, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Jacqui TaylorPsychology Department, Bournemouth University, Poole, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Subjective ratings have been central to the evaluation of icon characteristics. The current study examined biases in ratings in relation to the context in which icons are presented. Context was manipulated between participants, with some groups rating icon sets with limited variability, and others rating icon sets with wide variability. It was predicted that the context created by the icon set would influence participants' ratings; when the range of icons was limited, this would create bias given participants' expectation that a full range of icon values was being presented. Six key icon characteristics were rated, which were visual (visual complexity, appeal), affective (valence, feelings), and semantic (concreteness, semantic distance). Some icon characteristics were susceptible to rating bias while others were not. Where subjective judgements were being made of visual icon characteristics (appeal/complexity) and highly concrete icons which were very pictorial, there was clear evidence of substantial bias in ratings. The same susceptibility to bias was not evident when ratings relied solely on learned semantic associations or were associated with the emotional attributions made to icons. The dynamic nature of the ratings bias was demonstrated when the rating context was changed without participants' knowledge. When participants rated further blocks of icons providing a different range of the to-be-rated characteristic, this resulted in rapid and dramatic changes in rating behaviour. These findings demonstrate the need for representative sampling of icon characteristics to avoid ratings bias. Practically, this is important when determining the usability of newly designed icon sets in order to avoid over-valuing or under-valuing of key characteristics.

Indexed as

CommunicationSemanticsHumansLearningAffectComplexityConcretenessIcon design and usabilityIcon ratingsRatings biasVisual appeal

Identifiers

PMID36220952
PMCPMC10615954

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.