ArticleScientific reports2022
Investigating the mechanisms by which selective attention affects subsequent preferences and choice.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In two experiments, we investigated two untested assumptions regarding the mechanism by which selective attention during search affects subsequent preferences for objects. First, we tested whether an increase in visual competition during search increases preferences for relevant objects and decreases preferences for irrelevant objects subsequent to search. Second, we tested whether searching for objects increases the perceived fluency to process relevant objects and decreases the perceived fluency to process irrelevant objects. Our results show that search can affect relevant and irrelevant objects differently. Selective attention increased preferences for target objects subsequent to search, whereas selective attention did not affect preferences for distractors. Furthermore, our results indicate that searching for a target object increased the perceived fluency for this target object during choice, whereas ignoring a distractor product blocked mere exposure effects. Contrary to assumptions made in previous research, we found no indication that the competition for visual resources during search is linked to preferences for targets or distractors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.