Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38330018›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

A newly detected bias in self-evaluation.

Guillaume Deffuant, Thibaut Roubin, Armelle Nugier, Serge Guimond

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. 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

4 authors.

Guillaume DeffuantUniversité Clermont Auvergne, INRAE LISC, Aubière, France.ORCID 0000-0001-6265-9300
Thibaut RoubinUniversité Clermont Auvergne, INRAE LISC, Aubière, France.
Armelle NugierUniversité Clermont Auvergne, LAPSCO, Clermont-Ferrand, France.ORCID 0000-0002-5283-8863
Serge GuimondUniversité Clermont Auvergne, LAPSCO, Clermont-Ferrand, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The widely observed positive bias on self-evaluation is mainly explained by the self-enhancement motivation which minimizes negative feedbacks and emphasizes positive ones. Recent agent based simulations suggest that a positive bias also emerges if the sensitivity to feedbacks decreases when the self-evaluation increases. This paper proposes a simple mathematical model in which these different biases are integrated. Moreover, it describes an experiment (N = 1509) confirming that the sensitivity to feedbacks tends to decrease when self-evaluation increases and that a directly related positive bias is detected.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Self EvaluationSelf-AssessmentBiasMotivation

Identifiers

PMID38330018
PMCPMC10852250

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.