↓ Skip to main content

When Less Is More: Evolutionary Origins of the Affect Heuristic

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
21 X users
facebook
7 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
When Less Is More: Evolutionary Origins of the Affect Heuristic
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0046240
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jerald D. Kralik, Eric R. Xu, Emily J. Knight, Sara A. Khan, William J. Levine

Abstract

The human mind is built for approximations. When considering the value of a large aggregate of different items, for example, we typically do not summate the many individual values. Instead, we appear to form an immediate impression of the likeability of the option based on the average quality of the full collection, which is easier to evaluate and remember. While useful in many situations, this affect heuristic can lead to apparently irrational decision-making. For example, studies have shown that people are willing to pay more for a small set of high-quality goods than for the same set of high-quality goods with lower-quality items added [e.g. 1]. We explored whether this kind of choice behavior could be seen in other primates. In two experiments, one in the laboratory and one in the field, using two different sets of food items, we found that rhesus monkeys preferred a highly-valued food item alone to the identical item paired with a food of positive but lower value. This finding provides experimental evidence that, under certain conditions, macaque monkeys follow an affect heuristic that can cause them to prefer less food. Conservation of this affect heuristic could account for similar 'irrational' biases in humans, and may reflect a more general complexity reduction strategy in which averages, prototypes, or stereotypes represent a set or group.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Iceland 1 1%
Bosnia and Herzegovina 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Luxembourg 1 1%
Unknown 75 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Other 21 26%
Unknown 15 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 29 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 6%
Environmental Science 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 20 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 November 2016.
All research outputs
#993,306
of 25,587,485 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#12,797
of 223,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,629
of 191,860 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#196
of 4,548 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,587,485 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 223,159 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 191,860 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,548 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.