Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35140344›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Overcoming cognitive set bias requires more than seeing an alternative strategy.

Sarah M Pope-Caldwell, David A Washburn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Sarah M Pope-CaldwellDepartment of Comparative Cultural Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany. caldwell.sarahmichelle@gmail.com.
David A WashburnLanguage Research Center, Department of Psychology, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA.

Funding

The Emergence of Self-Control: Comparative Beh. and Neurobiological AssessmentsP01HD060563 · NICHD · GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY · PI POSNER, MICHAEL I · 2010 to 2014
$4.1M
NICHD NIH HHS P01 HD060563
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Determining when to switch from one strategy to another is at the heart of adaptive decision-making. Previous research shows that humans exhibit a 'cognitive set' bias, which occurs when a familiar strategy occludes-even much better-alternatives. Here we examined the mechanisms underlying cognitive set by investigating whether better solutions are visually overlooked, or fixated on but disregarded. We analyzed gaze data from 67 American undergraduates (91% female) while they completed the learned strategy-direct strategy (LS-DS) task, which measures their ability to switch from a learned strategy (LS) to a more efficient direct strategy (DS or shortcut). We found that, in the first trial block, participants fixated on the location of the shortcut more when it was available but most (89.6%) did not adopt it. Next, participants watched a video demonstrating either the DS (N = 34 Informed participants) or the familiar LS (N = 33 Controls). In post-video trials, Informed participants used the DS more than pre-video trials and compared to Controls. Notably, 29.4% of Informed participants continued to use the LS despite watching the DS video. We suggest that cognitive set in the LS-DS task does not stem from an inability to see the shortcut but rather a failure to try it.

Indexed as

CognitionDecision MakingProblem SolvingFemaleFixation, OcularHumansLearningMaleYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID35140344
PMCPMC8828898

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.