ArticleFrontiers in psychology2019
The Effect of Negative Feedback on Positive Beliefs in Self-Deception.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effect of Comparative Direction and Comparative Gap on Self-Deception.Psychology research and behavior management · 2024Article
- The influence of different negative feedback on the decay of self-deception.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Self-Deception Reduces Cognitive Load: The Role of Involuntary Conscious Memory Impairment.Frontiers in psychology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the present study, we applied the forward-looking paradigm to examine how positive beliefs appear in self-deception and to further reveal the influence of negative feedback on positive beliefs to decrease self-deception. In Experiment 1, the answer group (with answer hints provided below the test material) and the control group (without answer hints) completed two tests. Participants estimated their Test 1 scores, predicted their performance on the upcoming Test 2 without answer hints, and completed Test 2. Their actual scores on the two tests were recorded. The results showed that the answer group predicted higher Test 2 scores than the control group, but the two groups did not differ in their actual scores. These results showed that the answer group had positive self-deception. In Experiment 2, the two groups were given negative feedback (vs. no feedback) after Test 1, and the changes between their estimated scores on Test 1 and their predicted score and actual score on Test 2 were measured. The results indicated that there was no significant difference in the estimated scores and the predicted score between the two groups under the feedback condition compared with the negative feedback condition. These findings demonstrated that the effectiveness of the forward-looking paradigm can activate participants' positive beliefs and cheat behaviors by providing the answers to induce self-deception, and negative feedback can decrease the occurrence of self-deception by reducing the positive beliefs of individuals and improving self-awareness to prevent or eliminate the negative impact of self-deception.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.