ArticleJournal of cognition2026
Playing With Matches: Preparatory Cognitive Processing Shapes Affective Evaluation.
Article in Journal of cognition, 2026. 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
Cognition and affect are closely intertwined: identifying a task-relevant object can elicit positive affect, and successfully solving the associated task can enhance it further. Beyond stimulus-driven processing, theories of proactive control and predictive coding suggest that task-related cognition already unfolds before stimulus onset. We propose that such preparatory processes shape affective responses to task completion. In preregistered Experiment 1, participants categorized digit pairs as either "match" (e.g., 3 and 3) or "sequence" (e.g., 3 and 4). Affective responses were assessed via affective priming. Surveys indicated that most participants prepared for matches ("match seekers"), thus implicitly recoding sequences to "no match." As predicted, correct responses to matches were faster and more positively valenced than responses to sequences. This pattern reversed for the subsample that prepared for sequences ("sequence seekers"). When participants were asked to categorize digits by color-which rendered preparatory processing for matches or sequences task-irrelevant-no affective differences emerged. In Experiment 2, we manipulated preparatory processing via instructions and response categories. Again, match seekers showed an affective advantage for matches, sequence seekers for sequences. Taken together, our findings imply that to understand affective responses to task completions, it is imperative to understand the preparatory processes the performer engaged in.
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.