Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33740159›Full record

ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2021

Great expectations: minor differences in initial instructions have a major impact on visual search in the absence of feedback.

Patrick H Cox, Dwight J Kravitz, Stephen R Mitroff

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Cue relevance drives early quitting in visual search.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Framing the fallibility of Computer-Aided Detection aids cancer detection.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Patrick H CoxDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA. patrickcox@gwu.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-8109-8422
Dwight J KravitzDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
Stephen R MitroffDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
George Washington University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Professions such as radiology and aviation security screening that rely on visual search-the act of looking for targets among distractors-often cannot provide operators immediate feedback, which can create situations where performance may be largely driven by the searchers' own expectations. For example, if searchers do not expect relatively hard-to-spot targets to be present in a given search, they may find easy-to-spot targets but systematically quit searching before finding more difficult ones. Without feedback, searchers can create self-fulfilling prophecies where they incorrectly reinforce initial biases (e.g., first assuming and then, perhaps wrongly, concluding hard-to-spot targets are rare). In the current study, two groups of searchers completed an identical visual search task but with just a single difference in their initial task instructions before the experiment started; those in the "high-expectation" condition were told that each trial could have one or two targets present (i.e., correctly implying no target-absent trials) and those in the "low-expectation" condition were told that each trial would have up to two targets (i.e., incorrectly implying there could be target-absent trials). Compared to the high-expectation group, the low-expectation group had a lower hit rate, lower false alarm rate and quit trials more quickly, consistent with a lower quitting threshold (i.e., performing less exhaustive searches) and a potentially higher target-present decision criterion. The expectation effect was present from the start and remained across the experiment-despite exposure to the same true distribution of targets, the groups' performances remained divergent, primarily driven by the different subjective experiences caused by each groups' self-fulfilling prophecies. The effects were limited to the single-targets trials, which provides insights into the mechanisms affected by the initial expectations set by the instructions. In sum, initial expectations can have dramatic influences-searchers who do not expect to find a target, are less likely to find a target as they are more likely to quit searching earlier.

Indexed as

MotivationRadiologyBiasFeedbackExpectationFeedbackInstructionsSelf-fulling prophecyVisual search

Identifiers

PMID33740159
PMCPMC7975232
OpenAlexW3136064977

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.