↓ Skip to main content

The potential role of temporal dynamics in approach biases: delay-dependence of a general approach bias in an alcohol approach-avoidance task

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
34 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 potential role of temporal dynamics in approach biases: delay-dependence of a general approach bias in an alcohol approach-avoidance task
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01398
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas E. Gladwin, Sören E. Mohr, Reinout W. Wiers

Abstract

Attractive cues have been shown to evoke automatic approach biases in tasks such as the Automatic Approach Task or Stimulus Response Compatibility task. An important but as yet not studied question is the role of temporal dynamics in such tasks: the impact of automatic processes may depend on the interval between cue and response. The current proof of principle study tested this hypothesized time-dependence of the approach bias. Secondary goals included the exploration of effects of alcohol cues and virtual hand stimuli. 22 participants performed an SRC task in which the delay between the presentation of the cue and the possibility to select the response was manipulated. Results revealed an approach bias that decayed over longer delays. Thus, the approach bias was indeed dependent on processes that are transiently evoked by cues. The results did not show significant effects of alcohol cues or a virtual hand. Temporal dynamics may be an essential feature of approach biases.

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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
Netherlands 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 31 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 5 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 23 68%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Computer Science 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 5 15%
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 01 December 2014.
All research outputs
#15,332,207
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,709
of 31,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,568
of 365,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#280
of 365 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 365,438 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 365 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.