↓ Skip to main content

Thinking before sinning: reasoning processes in hedonic consumption

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
27 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Thinking before sinning: reasoning processes in hedonic consumption
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01268
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jessie de Witt Huberts, Catharine Evers, Denise de Ridder

Abstract

Whereas hedonic consumption is often labeled as impulsive, findings from self-licensing research suggest that people sometimes rely on reasons to justify hedonic consumption. Although the concept of self-licensing assumes the involvement of reasoning processes, this has not been demonstrated explicitly. Two studies investigated whether people indeed rely on reasons to allow themselves a guilty pleasure. Participants were exposed to a food temptation after which passive and active reasoning was assessed by asking participants to indicate the justifications that applied to them for indulging in that temptation (Study 1) or having them construe reasons to consume the hedonic product (Study 2). Regression analyses indicated that higher levels of temptation predicted the number of reasons employed and construed to justify consumption. By providing evidence for the involvement of reasoning processes, these findings support the assumption of self-licensing theory that temptations not only exert their influence by making us more impulsive, but can also facilitate gratification by triggering deliberative reasoning processes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 24%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 17 25%
Unknown 13 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 23 34%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 12%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Neuroscience 4 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 14 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 21 November 2014.
All research outputs
#2,098,932
of 25,613,746 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#4,256
of 34,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,013
of 276,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#71
of 384 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,613,746 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,699 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 276,443 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 384 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.