Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39198574›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Comparing competing characterizations suggests there might be more than one type of interest.

Daniel Dukes, Catherine Audrin, Fabrice Clément, Marcello Mortillaro

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Daniel DukesSwiss Center for Affective Sciences, University of Geneva, Campus Biotech, 9 Chemin des Mines, 1202, Geneva, Switzerland. daniel.dukes@unige.ch.
Catherine AudrinUniversity of Teacher Education, Vaud, Switzerland.
Fabrice ClémentUniversity of Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland.
Marcello MortillaroSwiss Center for Affective Sciences, University of Geneva, Campus Biotech, 9 Chemin des Mines, 1202, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although there is general consensus concerning the importance and function of interest in our daily lives, there is little agreement about its nature. Four studies of increasing ecological validity (total N = 993) were carried out to compare two different characterizations of interest in terms of the key appraisals involved. The findings indicate that while a two-appraisal model is suitable to explain the interest we can feel towards simple stimuli, a more complex model may better capture the nature of interest in the real world. Further analysis suggested the contrasting previous results could be resolved by arguing that previous models of interest capture different types of interest. This novel finding represents a promising first step towards a more definitive definition of interest, and suggests that while interest may always be related to motivating exploration, learning and general well-being, researchers should be more precise about the type of interest to which they refer.

Indexed as

Appraisal theoryEmotionInterestLatent class analysis

Identifiers

PMID39198574
PMCPMC11358424

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.