ArticleScientific reports2024
Incidental affect influences choice preference among competing alternatives in a modified Affect Misattribution Procedure.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Affective feelings exert a powerful influence on decision making, even when the source of those feelings is incidental, i.e., unrelated to the decision at hand. Research on the role of affect in decision making has typically focused on how incidental affect shapes evaluations of an individual target, and thus decisions about how to engage with that target. It is less clear, however, if and how individuals use their incidental affective feelings when evaluating and comparing multiple competing targets and deciding which one to choose. To investigate this, we modified the Affect Misattribution Procedure (AMP) to include two competing targets, presented sequentially, that individuals needed to choose between. In two pre-registered studies (N = 196 and N = 214), participants were presented with pairs of landscape images (e.g., beaches, lakes) and asked to choose which image in the pair they liked more. Each landscape was preceded by an affective prime: a briefly flashed image of a face that was either smiling (a positive prime), scowling (a negative prime), or neutral (a neutral prime). We found that participants were significantly more likely to choose landscapes preceded by primes of more positive valence, and this effect was driven by trials on which the positive prime came second. Our studies demonstrate that decision makers use their incidental affective feelings when making choices among competing alternatives, and introduce a novel methodology for understanding the constructive role of affect in preference formation.
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.