ArticlePLoS computational biology2022
Interactions between attributions and beliefs at trial-by-trial level: Evidence from a novel computer game task.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Causal attributions shape the formation of novel ability self-beliefs.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- The neurocomputational mechanisms underlying the impact of social comparison on effort investment.Communications biology · 2026Article
- Active disambiguation guides inferring controllability and cause in social interactions.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Blaming luck, claiming skill: Self-attribution bias in error assignment.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Initial Expectations and Confidence Affect the Formation of Novel Self-Beliefs and Their Revision.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inferring causes of the good and bad events that we experience is part of the process of building models of our own capabilities and of the world around us. Making such inferences can be difficult because of complex reciprocal relationships between attributions of the causes of particular events, and beliefs about the capabilities and skills that influence our role in bringing them about. Abnormal causal attributions have long been studied in connection with psychiatric disorders, notably depression and paranoia; however, the mechanisms behind attributional inferences and the way they can go awry are not fully understood. We administered a novel, challenging, game of skill to a substantial population of healthy online participants, and collected trial-by-trial time series of both their beliefs about skill and attributions about the causes of the success and failure of real experienced outcomes. We found reciprocal relationships that provide empirical confirmation of the attribution-self representation cycle theory. This highlights the dynamic nature of the processes involved in attribution, and validates a framework for developing and testing computational accounts of attribution-belief interactions.
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.