↓ Skip to main content

Hooked on a feeling: affective anti-smoking messages are more effective than cognitive messages at changing implicit evaluations of smoking

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Hooked on a feeling: affective anti-smoking messages are more effective than cognitive messages at changing implicit evaluations of smoking
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01488
Pubmed ID
Authors

Colin Tucker Smith, Jan De Houwer

Abstract

Because implicit evaluations are thought to underlie many aspects of behavior, researchers have started looking for ways to change them. We examine whether and when persuasive messages alter strongly held implicit evaluations of smoking. In smokers, an affective anti-smoking message led to more negative implicit evaluations on four different implicit measures as compared to a cognitive anti-smoking message which seemed to backfire. Additional analyses suggested that the observed effects were mediated by the feelings and emotions raised by the messages. In non-smokers, both the affective and cognitive message engendered slightly more negative implicit evaluations. We conclude that persuasive messages change implicit evaluations in a way that depends on properties of the message and of the participant. Thus, our data open new avenues for research directed at tailoring persuasive messages to change implicit evaluations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 3%
Unknown 35 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 28%
Student > Master 8 22%
Researcher 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 58%
Computer Science 3 8%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Unspecified 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 7 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 10 October 2015.
All research outputs
#7,756,276
of 24,340,143 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,047
of 32,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,126
of 282,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#200
of 531 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,340,143 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,770 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 282,769 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 531 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.