Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42798311›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Adult age-group differences in domain-specific environmental appraisal under standardized exposure.

Lingyu Kong, Dongkwon Seong

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.

Lingyu KongDepartment of X-Cultural Studies, Graduate School of Kookmin University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Dongkwon SeongDepartment of X-Cultural Studies, Graduate School of Kookmin University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adult age-group differences in environmental judgment may be expressed through domain-specific differences in comparative appraisal under standardized exposure conditions. Drawing on environmental appraisal theory, this study examined whether perceived environmental support is organized as a domain-specific comparative appraisal process and whether age group moderates the distribution of such appraisal across domains under standardized exposure conditions. Using a within-subject comparative rating design, 804 adults from South Korea and China evaluated two thematically matched cultural exhibition settings presented through standardized visual materials. Perceived environmental support was assessed using 17 study-specific appraisal items aggregated into five theory-guided domains for domain-level comparative analysis. Results from the full-sample analysis showed significant Context × Domain and Context × Domain × Age Group interactions in linear mixed-effects models, indicating that comparative judgments followed a domain-differentiated pattern and that this domain profile varied across age groups rather than reflecting a uniform preference for one context. The overall domain-differentiated pattern was highly stable under repeated age-balanced subsampling, whereas the age-moderation effect showed lower resampling stability. Age-group profiles showed no simple monotonic progression across adulthood. Together, these findings support a domain-distributed account of environmental appraisal in which age-group variation is located in the configuration of support-relevant appraisal rather than overall evaluative tendency.

Indexed as

adult age differencescomparative judgmentdomain-specific appraisalenvironmental appraisalperceived environmental supportperson-environment fitstandardized exposure

Identifiers

PMID42798311
PMCPMC13612204

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.