↓ Skip to main content

Search for Expectancy-Inconsistent Information Reduces Uncertainty Better: The Role of Cognitive Capacity

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Search for Expectancy-Inconsistent Information Reduces Uncertainty Better: The Role of Cognitive Capacity
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00395
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paweł Strojny, Małgorzata Kossowska, Agnieszka Strojny

Abstract

Motivation and cognitive capacity are key factors in people's everyday struggle with uncertainty. However, the exact nature of their interplay in various contexts still needs to be revealed. The presented paper reports on two experimental studies which aimed to examine the joint consequences of motivational and cognitive factors for preferences regarding incomplete information expansion. In Study 1 we demonstrate the interactional effect of motivation and cognitive capacity on information preference. High need for closure resulted in a stronger relative preference for expectancy-inconsistent information among non-depleted individuals, but the opposite among cognitively depleted ones. This effect was explained by the different informative value of questions in comparison to affirmative sentences and the potential possibility of assimilation of new information if it contradicts prior knowledge. In Study 2 we further investigated the obtained effect, showing that not only questions but also other kinds of incomplete information are subject to the same dependency. Our results support the expectation that, in face of incomplete information, motivation toward closure may be fulfilled efficiently by focusing on expectancy-inconsistent pieces of data. We discuss the obtained effect in the context of previous assumptions that high need for closure results in a simple processing style, advocating a more complex approach based on the character of the provided information.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hong Kong 1 3%
Netherlands 1 3%
Unknown 37 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 6 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 23 59%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Linguistics 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Design 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 23%
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 09 April 2016.
All research outputs
#14,195,272
of 22,755,127 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#15,046
of 29,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,862
of 300,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#288
of 475 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,755,127 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 29,659 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 300,025 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 475 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.