ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2024
Confidence ratings increase response thresholds in decision making.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Making Judgments of Learning Increases Restudy Choices: Evidence for Reactivity in Metacognitive Control.Journal of Intelligence · 2026Article
- Intuitive and deliberate decisions can be accounted for by the same cognitive process model.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Rating our certainty: how confidence judgments amplify belief polarization.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Unconscious cognition without post hoc selection artifacts: From selective analysis to functional dissociations.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Judgments of learning impair rule-based discovery.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- Response Time as a Proxy for Decision Confidence: Insights From Type-2 ROC Analysis.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2026Article
- Introduction to the Special Issue: Advances in Metacognition, Learning, and Reactivity.Journal of Intelligence · 2025Article
- Monitoring-Based Rewards Enhance Both Learning Performance and Metacognitive Monitoring Accuracy.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Diminished reactivity effect of confidence rating on perceptual decision-making in depression.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Do Confidence Ratings Reactively Modify Children's Academic Assessment Performance? Negative Answer from a Three-Year Longitudinal Study.Journal of Intelligence · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many mental processes are reactive - they are altered as a result of introspection and monitoring. It has been documented that soliciting trial-by-trial confidence ratings (CRs) reactively improves decision accuracy and lengthens response times (RTs), but the cognitive mechanisms underlying CR reactivity in decision-making remain unknown. The current study conducted two experiments and employed the drift-diffusion model (DDM) to explore why reporting confidence reactively alters the decision-making process. The results showed that CRs led to enhanced decision accuracy, longer RTs, and higher response thresholds. The findings are consistent with an increased conservatism hypothesis which asserts that soliciting CRs provokes feelings of uncertainty and makes individuals more cautious in their decision making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37803229What 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.