↓ Skip to main content

The framing effect and skin conductance responses

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
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
The framing effect and skin conductance responses
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, August 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00188
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrick Ring

Abstract

Individuals often rely on simple heuristics when they face complex choice situations under uncertainty. Traditionally, it has been proposed that cognitive processes are the main driver to evaluate different choice options and to finally reach a decision. Growing evidence, however, highlights a strong interrelation between judgment and decision-making (JDM) on the one hand, and emotional processes on the other hand. This also seems to apply to judgmental heuristics, i.e., decision processes that are typically considered to be fast and intuitive. In this study, participants are exposed to different probabilities of receiving an unpleasant electric shock. Information about electric shock probabilities is either positively or negatively framed. Integrated skin conductance responses (ISCRs) while waiting for electric shock realization are used as an indicator for participants' emotional arousal. This measure is compared to objective probabilities. I find evidence for a relation between emotional body reactions measured by ISCRs and the framing effect. Under negative frames, participants show significantly higher ISCRs while waiting for an electric shock to be delivered than under positive frames. This result might contribute to a better understanding of the psychological processes underlying JDM. Further studies are necessary to reveal the causality underlying this finding, i.e., whether emotional processes influence JDM or vice versa.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 26%
Student > Bachelor 9 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 13%
Researcher 5 11%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 5 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 43%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 6%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 9 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 05 August 2015.
All research outputs
#14,690,968
of 22,817,213 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#2,010
of 3,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,378
of 264,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#64
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,817,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,168 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 264,148 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.