Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41768164›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Loneliness and preferences for objects in light versus dark background lighting.

Fuschia M Sirois, Yanan Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. 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

2 authors.

Fuschia M SiroisDepartment of Psychology, Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom.
Yanan WangWilliams School of Business, Bishop's University, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: When presented with temperature related options that metaphorically reflect loneliness or non-loneliness, lonely people choose the non-lonely option. Less is known about the reasons for this preference, or whether it also extends to the visual domain. Across six experiments (Total Methods and results: Studies 1-2 found that chronic and state loneliness were associated with preferences for objects in brightness rather than darkness. Study 3 replicated results from Study 2 and provided evidence for the idea that lonely people do not prefer objects in darkness because they evoke a negative self-congruity with the object. Study 4 demonstrated that engaging in conscious information processing of dark background lighting eliminated the effects of loneliness on object preference and the associated negative emotions. Studies 5 and 6 provided evidence that the effects of loneliness were only for objects that had self-referent salience, supporting an ideal self-object congruity hypothesis. Conclusion: This research reveals a novel link between loneliness and lighting preferences, and as such advances understanding of the metaphorical mapping of loneliness, and the implications of individual differences in loneliness for decision-making and consumer behavior.

Indexed as

background lightingconceptual metaphordecision-makingembodied cognitionlonelinessself-schemas

Identifiers

PMID41768164
PMCPMC12935958

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.