ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023
The framing of choice nudges prolonged processing in the evaluation of food images.
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.
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.
- Crosstalk between delayed and immediate subjective evaluation tasks.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Speed is associated with polarization during subjective evaluation: no tradeoff, but an effect of the ease of processing.Cognitive neurodynamics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.