↓ Skip to main content

Objective Physiological Measurements but Not Subjective Reports Moderate the Effect of Hunger on Choice Behavior

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2018
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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Objective Physiological Measurements but Not Subjective Reports Moderate the Effect of Hunger on Choice Behavior
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00750
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maytal Shabat-Simon, Anastasia Shuster, Tal Sela, Dino J. Levy

Abstract

Hunger is a powerful driver of human behavior, and is therefore of great interest to the study of psychology, economics, and consumer behavior. Assessing hunger levels in experiments is often biased, when using self-report methods, or complex, when using blood tests. We propose a novel way of objectively measuring subjects' levels of hunger by identifying levels of alpha-amylase (AA) enzyme in their saliva samples. We used this measure to uncover the effect of hunger on different types of choice behaviors. We found that hunger increases risk-seeking behavior in a lottery-choice task, modifies levels of vindictiveness in a social decision-making task, but does not have a detectible effect on economic inconsistency in a budget-set choice task. Importantly, these findings were moderated by AA levels and not by self-report measures. We demonstrate the effects hunger has on choice behavior and the problematic nature of subjective measures of physiological states, and propose to use reliable and valid biologically based methods to overcome these problems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 10 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 16%
Neuroscience 6 14%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 11%
Engineering 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 14 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 06 April 2023.
All research outputs
#1,507,792
of 23,532,144 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#3,047
of 31,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,199
of 331,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#106
of 658 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,532,144 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,362 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 331,339 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 658 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.