Preference for information about an uncertain but unavoidable outcome.
Abstract
(Predictive strategies and the need to confirm them: some notes on pathological types of decision. 'Psychological Reports,' 15:99-105 (1964)). The study was designed to examine the effects on search of type of outcome (whether positive or negative), and to monitor the affective state of subjects in an attempt to clarify the basis for overtly noninstrumental search behavior. The study had three objectives: (a) to extend to the human level the analysis of the effects of uncertain and unavoidable outcomes on information search where, to date, only Pervin's paired comparison preference data are available; (b) to assess the differential effects of type of outcome (shock, monetary reward) on search; and in particular (c) to measure possible changes in the affective or arousal state of subjects in response to information. (Author)
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Participants felt more anxious when exposed to unpredictable shocks.
“Participants also felt more anxious when exposed to unpredictable shocks (Badia, McBane, Suter, & Lewis, 1966; Lanzetta & Driscoll, 1966).”
From Extension of the Transdiagnostic Model to Focus on Intolerance of Uncertainty: A Review of the Literature and Implications for Treatment (2014) · cites this paper as Lanzetta & Driscoll, 1966
Participants reported unpredictable shocks as noticeably stronger.
“Participants reported unpredictable shocks as noticeably stronger.”
From Extension of the Transdiagnostic Model to Focus on Intolerance of Uncertainty: A Review of the Literature and Implications for Treatment (2014) · cites this paper as Lanzetta & Driscoll, 1966
Participants preferred immediate electric shocks to unpredictable ones.
“participants were shown to prefer immediate electric shocks to unpredictable ones.”
From Extension of the Transdiagnostic Model to Focus on Intolerance of Uncertainty: A Review of the Literature and Implications for Treatment (2014) · cites this paper as Lanzetta & Driscoll, 1966
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 17 · Cited by 107
- Authors
- Lanzetta, J. T., & Driscoll, J. M.
- Affiliations
- Dartmouth College (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 1966
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 96-102
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2002985572
- Cited by
- 107
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 3.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- information search, outcome preferences, uncertainty, positive and negative outcomes, affective states, arousal, shock, monetary rewards, decision-making
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Affect, Arousal, Electroshock, Galvanic Skin Response, Humans, Information Theory, Male, Reward, Stress, Physiological
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
