Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36997556›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

When familiarity not novelty motivates information-seeking behaviour.

Gregory Brooks, Hannah Whitehead, Stefan Kӧhler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Gregory Brooks *Graduate Program in Neuroscience, Western University, London, N6A 3K7, Canada.
Hannah Whitehead *Department of Psychology, Western University, London, N6A 3K7, Canada.
Stefan KӧhlerDepartment of Psychology, Western University, London, N6A 3K7, Canada. stefank@uwo.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research has established that novelty motivates information-seeking behaviour in many situations. While novelty preferences have been well-studied, an understanding of conditions under which familiarity trumps novelty remains limited. Recent work has revealed that when a metacognitive experience indicates that unsuccessfully recalled information may still be available, a subsequent tendency to seek out unrecalled familiar information can emerge. We conducted three experiments to identify critical factors that determine when familiarity preferences can be observed. Experiment 1 demonstrated the critical role of a recent unsuccessful recall attempt in inducing such a preference. Experiment 2 revealed that the impact of recall attempts is not limited to situations that follow unsuccessful recall, as a familiarity preference was observed even when information was successfully generated. Experiment 3 showed that the level of confidence in the accuracy of any recalled information is a key factor, with moderate levels of confidence leading to the strongest subsequent familiarity preference. Together, our results suggest that novelty preferences in information-seeking are not ubiquitous, as specific situational demands including recent attempted memory retrieval, as well as metacognitive retrieval experiences, can induce familiarity preferences. Our findings can be interpreted within theoretical frameworks that emphasize the role of knowledge gaps as driving factors of information-seeking.

Indexed as

Information Seeking BehaviorMetacognitionMemoryMental RecallRecognition, Psychology

Identifiers

PMID36997556
PMCPMC10063652

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.