Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35850045›Full record

ArticleCognition2022

People adaptively use information to improve their internal states and external outcomes.

I Cogliati Dezza, C Maher, T Sharot

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Three diverse motives for information sharing.Communications psychology · 2024
    Article
  6. "How" web searches change under stress.Scientific reports · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

I Cogliati DezzaDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AP, UK; Department of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, Ghent, BE, Belgium; The Max Planck UCL Centre for Computational Psychiatry and Ageing Research, University College London, 10-12 Russell Square, London, WC1B 5EH, UK. Electronic address: irene.cogliatidezza@gmail.com.
C MaherDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AP, UK; The Max Planck UCL Centre for Computational Psychiatry and Ageing Research, University College London, 10-12 Russell Square, London, WC1B 5EH, UK.
T SharotDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AP, UK; The Max Planck UCL Centre for Computational Psychiatry and Ageing Research, University College London, 10-12 Russell Square, London, WC1B 5EH, UK; Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 43 Vassar St, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA. Electronic address: t.sharot@ucl.ac.uk.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 214268/Z/18/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Information can strongly impact people's affect, their level of uncertainty and their decisions. It is assumed that people seek information with the goal of improving all three. But are they successful at achieving this goal? Answering this question is important for assessing the impact of self-driven information consumption on people's well-being. Here, over five experiments (total N = 727) we show that participants accurately predict the impact of information on their internal states (e.g., affect and cognition) and external outcomes (e.g., material rewards), and use these predictions to guide information-seeking choices. A model incorporating participants' subjective expectations regarding the impact of information on their affective, cognitive, and material outcomes accounted for information-seeking choices better than a model that included only objective proxies of those measures. This model also accounted for individual differences in information-seeking choices. By balancing considerations of the impact of information on affective, cognitive and material outcomes when seeking knowledge, participants became happier, more certain and made better decisions when they sought information relative to when they did not, suggesting that the actual consequences of receiving information aligned with their subjective expectations.

Indexed as

CognitionRewardHumansAffectAgencyInformation-seekingUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID35850045
PMCPMC10510028

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.