Cited by 224

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effects of anticipatory stress on decision making in a gambling task.

Preston, S. D., Buchanan, T. W., Stansfield, R. B., Bechara, A.·2007·Behavioral Neuroscience

Abstract

Recent research has highlighted the fact that emotion that is intrinsic to a task benefits decision making. The authors tested the converse hypothesis, that unrelated emotion disrupts decision making. Participants played the Iowa Gambling Task, during which only experimental participants anticipated giving a public speech (A. Bechara, D. Tranel, & H. Damasio, 2000). Experimental participants who were anticipating the speech learned the contingencies of the choices more slowly, and there was a gender interaction later in the game, with stressed female participants having more explicit knowledge and more advantageous performance and stressed male participants having poorer explicit knowledge and less advantageous performance. Effects of anticipatory stress on decision making are complex and depend on both the nature of the task and the individual.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0735-7044.121.2.257

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Preston, S. D., Buchanan, T. W., Stansfield, R. B., & Bechara, A.
Venue
Behavioral Neuroscience
Published
2007
Volume
121
Issue
2
Pages
257-263
ISSN
  • 1939-0084
  • 0735-7044
Cited by
224
References
5
Language
en
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (PO1 NS19632)
  • National Science Foundation (IIS 04-42586)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review