ArticlePNAS nexus2024
Predicting individual differences in peak emotional response.
Article in PNAS nexus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genetic underpinnings of chills from art and music.PLoS genetics · 2026Article
- Using chills-inducing music to augment self-transcendence, emotional breakthrough, and psychological insight during mindfulness and loving kindness meditation.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Contrasting cognitive, behavioral, and physiological responses to breathwork vs. naturalistic stimuli in reflective chamber and VR headset environments.PLOS mental health · 2025Article
- Article
- The neurobiology of aesthetic chills: How bodily sensations shape emotional experiences.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2024Review
- Self-transcendence accompanies aesthetic chills.PLOS mental health · 2024Article
- A volitional account of aesthetic experience.Frontiers in psychology · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Why does the same experience elicit strong emotional responses in some individuals while leaving others largely indifferent? Is the variance influenced by who people are (personality traits), how they feel (emotional state), where they come from (demographics), or a unique combination of these? In this 2,900+ participants study, we disentangle the factors that underlie individual variations in the universal experience of aesthetic chills, the feeling of cold and shivers down the spine during peak experiences. Here, we unravel the interplay of psychological and sociocultural dynamics influencing self-reported chills reactions. A novel technique harnessing mass data mining of social media platforms curates the first large database of ecologically sourced chills-evoking stimuli. A combination of machine learning techniques (LASSO and SVM) and multilevel modeling analysis elucidates the interacting roles of demographics, traits, and states factors in the experience of aesthetic chills. These findings highlight a tractable set of features predicting the occurrence and intensity of chills-age, sex, pre-exposure arousal, predisposition to Kama Muta (KAMF), and absorption (modified tellegen absorption scale [MODTAS]), with 73.5% accuracy in predicting the occurrence of chills and accounting for 48% of the variance in chills intensity. While traditional methods typically suffer from a lack of control over the stimuli and their effects, this approach allows for the assignment of stimuli tailored to individual biopsychosocial profiles, thereby, increasing experimental control and decreasing unexplained variability. Further, they elucidate how hidden sociocultural factors, psychological traits, and contextual states shape seemingly "subjective" phenomena.
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.