Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40963809›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2025

Disrupting the browsing experience: impact of sponsored social media content on affective flow without driving engagement.

Maike Hübner, Julia Thalmann, Jörg Henseler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Maike HübnerUsability and Interaction (UnI) Laboratory, Department of Business Administration and Economics, Ruhr West University of Applied Sciences, Mülheim, Germany.
Julia ThalmannUsability and Interaction (UnI) Laboratory, Department of Business Administration and Economics, Ruhr West University of Applied Sciences, Mülheim, Germany.
Jörg HenselerDepartment of Design, Production and Management, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Understanding how emotional experiences shape consumer behavior in digital environments is a central issue in decision-making neuroscience. While social media feeds are saturated with sponsored content, little is known about how such content modulates affective rhythms and influences engagement. Methods: Grounded in decision neuroscience frameworks and affective processing models, this study develops a three-layer analytical model to capture the emotional microstructure of scrolling behavior, conceptualized as the micro-customer journey. Participants navigate a simulated social media feed while responses were recorded via facial expression analysis, skin conductance, and real-time engagement tracking. Results: Browsing was predominantly neutral in affective tone, interrupted by brief spikes in arousal and positive valence. Sponsored content disrupted this baseline neutrality, producing a subtle shift in affective flow without amplifying emotional intensity. Contrary to common assumptions, biometric indicators of emotional arousal and valence did not predict engagement behavior. Discussion: Findings suggest that commercial content influences decision-making not by heightening emotional salience but by interrupting habitual affective continuity. This challenges conventional persuasion models that emphasize emotional intensity and highlights the need for revised frameworks that account for rhythm disruption, cognitive reappraisal, and trait-level variability in user responses.

Indexed as

affective processingemotional rhythmsfacial expression analysisgalvanic skin responsesocial media advertisinguser engagement

Identifiers

PMID40963809
PMCPMC12436280

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.