Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33547629›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2021

Answering a factual question today increases one's confidence in the same answer tomorrow - independent of fluency.

Joshua L Fiechter, Nate Kornell

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Joshua L FiechterDepartment of Psychology, Williams College, 25 Stetson Ct, Williamstown, MA, 01267, USA. josh.fiechter@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9671-7035
Nate KornellDepartment of Psychology, Williams College, 25 Stetson Ct, Williamstown, MA, 01267, USA.

Funding

James S. McDonnell Foundation 220020371
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We investigated the cognitive processes that cause confidence to increase. Participants were asked 48 general-knowledge questions either once or three times, without feedback. After 2 min (Experiment 1) or 48 h (Experiment 2) they were asked the same questions again, and rated their confidence. Repeated questioning increased confidence but not accuracy. This increase, which replicated research on episodic memory in the eyewitness literature (e.g., Shaw, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2: 126-146, 1996), occurred even though accuracy was only around 25%. A mediation analysis identified response repetition, but not fluency, as a mechanism underlying growth in confidence. Thus, the basis for confidence judgments appears to be whether one's current response has been generated previously. In sum, answering a factual question increases confidence, but not accuracy, and this happens because learners use response repetition as a cue for confidence judgments.

Indexed as

Memory, EpisodicPractice, PsychologicalAdultFemaleHumansMaleMetacognitionYoung AdultConfidenceJudgment and decision makingMetamemory

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.