ArticlePloS one2023
Exploring effects of response biases in affect induction procedures.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of the stress autism mate app on perceived stress, coping, and resilience in adults with autism: a single-case experimental design.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
- Measuring dynamic emotional experiences in response to media stimuli.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examined whether self-reports or ratings of experienced affect, often used as manipulation checks on the efficacy of affect induction procedures (AIPs), reflect genuine changes in affective states rather than response biases arising from demand characteristics or social desirability effects. In a between-participants design, participants were exposed to positive, negative and neutral images with valence-congruent music or sound to induce happy, sad and neutral mood. Half of the participants had to actively appraise each image whereas the other half viewed images passively. We hypothesised that if ratings of affective valence are subject to response biases then they should reflect the target mood in the same way for active appraisal and passive exposure as participants encountered the same affective stimuli in both conditions. We also tested whether the AIP resulted in mood-congruent changes in facial expressions analysed by FaceReader to see whether behavioural indicators corroborate the self-reports. The results showed that while participants' ratings reflected the induced target valence, the difference between positive and negative AIP was significantly attenuated in the active appraisal condition, suggesting that self-reports of mood experienced after the AIP are not entirely a reflection of response biases. However, there were no effects of the AIP on FaceReader valence scores, in line with theories questioning the existence of cross-culturally and inter-individually universal behavioural indicators of affective states. Efficacy of AIPs is therefore best checked using self-reports.
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.