↓ Skip to main content

The Weight of Emotions in Decision-Making: How Fearful and Happy Facial Stimuli Modulate Action Readiness of Goal-Directed Actions

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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 Weight of Emotions in Decision-Making: How Fearful and Happy Facial Stimuli Modulate Action Readiness of Goal-Directed Actions
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01334
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giovanni Mirabella

Abstract

Modern theories of behavioral control converge with the idea that goal-directed/voluntary behaviors are intimately tied to the evaluation of resources. Of key relevance in the decision-making processes that underlie action selection are those stimuli that bear emotional content. However, even though it is acknowledged that emotional information affects behavioral control, the exact way in which emotions impact on action planning is largely unknown. To clarify this issue, I gave an emotional version of a go/no-go task to healthy participants, in which they had to perform the same arm reaching movement when pictures of fearful or happy faces were presented, and to withhold it when pictures of faces with neutral expressions were presented. This task allows for the investigation of the effects of emotional stimuli when they are task-relevant without conflating movement planning with target detection and task switching. It was found that both the reaction times (RTs) and the percentages of errors increased when the go-signal was the image of a fearful looking face, as opposed to when the go-signal was a happy looking face. Importantly, to control for the role of the features of the stimuli, I ran a control task in which the same pictures were shown; however, participants had to move/withhold the commanded movement according to gender, disregarding the emotional valence. In this context, the differences between RTs and error percentages between the fearful and happy faces disappeared. On the one hand, these results suggest that fearful facial stimuli are likely to capture and hold attention more strongly than faces that express happiness, which could serve to increase vigilance for detecting a potential threat in an observer's environment. On the other hand, they also suggest that the influence of fearful facial stimuli is not automatic, but it depends on the task requirements.

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Researcher 8 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 4%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 25 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 22 29%
Neuroscience 12 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Engineering 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 28 37%
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 12 July 2023.
All research outputs
#8,133,105
of 26,303,092 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,506
of 35,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,508
of 345,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#343
of 721 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,303,092 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 35,146 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. 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 345,687 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 721 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 51% of its contemporaries.