Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37359857›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023

The framing of choice nudges prolonged processing in the evaluation of food images.

Ji Xu, Yimeng Jin, Johan Lauwereyns

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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. 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.

Ji XuGraduate School of Systems Life Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.
Yimeng JinGraduate School of Systems Life Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.
Johan LauwereynsGraduate School of Systems Life Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous research suggests that the type of choice framing for evaluation tasks can influence the relationship between response time and preference-based decision-making. Two separable factors may modulate the preference-based decision-making: The set of choice options (with or without an option to defer) and the constraint of choice (with high or low maximum for inclusion). To clarify how these factors influence the process of preference-based decision-making, we designed a virtual-shopping paradigm with a series of food images presented consecutively, while varying the set of choice options and the constraint of choice. For the set of choice options, subjects were asked to choose for each food image in either a two-options condition (i.e., "take it" or "leave it"), or a three-options condition (i.e., "take it," "wait," or "leave it"). For the constraint of choice, subjects were instructed to select a maximum of either five items out of 80 (i.e., highly constrained) or 15 items out of 80 (i.e., less constrained). As in previous findings, the response times were consistently longer for "take it" than for "leave it" options. Importantly, this difference was exacerbated under high constraint, when subjects could select only five items, suggesting a role for opportunity-cost consideration in the decision process. Furthermore, as compared to two-options tasks, subjects consistently spent more time overall in the three-options tasks (with the option to defer), displaying lower acceptance rates, and particularly long response times for the "wait" option. This finding suggests that choice framing with a defer option nudges prolonged processing.

Indexed as

choice framingnaturalistic food imagespreference-based decision-makingprolonged processingresponse time

Identifiers

PMID37359857
PMCPMC10290212

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.