SynthesisPsychonomic bulletin & review2022
Across-subject correlation between confidence and accuracy: A meta-analysis of the Confidence Database.
Synthesis in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Effect of Sleep Loss on Retrospective Metacognitive Judgements Across Five Cognitive Tests.Journal of sleep research · 2026Trial
- Dopamine Dynamics in the Nucleus Accumbens Reflect Confidence in Detecting the Occurrence and Nonoccurrence of Visual Signals in Perceptual Decision-Making.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
- A large-scale dataset of choice and response-time data in intertemporal choice.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Confidence in naturalistic decision making.Neuroscience of consciousness · 2026Article
- Response Time as a Proxy for Decision Confidence: Insights From Type-2 ROC Analysis.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2026Article
- Neural Oscillation as a Selective Modulatory Mechanism on Decision Confidence, Speed, and Accuracy.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- Large-scale experimental investigation of the reliability of confidence measures.Communications psychology · 2025Article
- How disconfirmatory evidence shapes confidence in decision-making.Communications psychology · 2025Article
- Challenging the Bayesian confidence hypothesis in perceptual decision-making.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
If one friend confidently tells us to buy Product A while another friend thinks that Product B is better but is not confident, we may go with the advice of our confident friend. Should we? The relationship between people's confidence and accuracy has been of great interest in many fields, especially in high-stakes situations like eyewitness testimony. However, there is still little consensus about how much we should trust someone's overall confidence level. Here, we examine the across-subject relationship between average accuracy and average confidence in 213 unique datasets from the Confidence Database. This approach allows us to empirically address this issue with unprecedented statistical power and check for the presence of various moderators. We find an across-subject correlation between average accuracy and average confidence of R = .22. Importantly, this relationship is much stronger for memory than for perception tasks ("domain effect"), as well as for confidence scales with fewer points ("granularity effect"). These results show that we should take one's confidence seriously (and perhaps buy Product A) and suggest several factors that moderate the relative consistency of how people make confidence judgments.
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.