Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38489145›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2024

The effects of non-diagnostic information on confidence and decision making.

Amelia T Kohl, James D Sauer, Matthew A Palmer, Jasmin Brooks, Andrew Heathcote

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Memory & cognition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Amelia T KohlSchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. a.t.kohl@bham.ac.uk.
James D SauerSchool of Psychological Sciences, University of Tasmania, Tasmania, Australia.
Matthew A PalmerSchool of Psychological Sciences, University of Tasmania, Tasmania, Australia.
Jasmin BrooksSchool of Psychological Sciences, University of Tasmania, Tasmania, Australia.
Andrew HeathcoteSchool of Psychological Sciences, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many decision-making tasks are characterized by a combination of diagnostic and non-diagnostic information, yet models of responding and confidence almost exclusively focus on the contribution of diagnostic information (e.g., evidence associated with stimulus discriminability), largely ignoring the contribution of non-diagnostic information. An exception is Baranski and Petrusic's Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(3), 929-945, (1998) doubt-scaling model, which predicts a negative relationship between non-diagnostic information and confidence, and between non-diagnostic information and accuracy. In two perceptual-choice tasks, we tested the effects of manipulating non-diagnostic information on confidence, accuracy and response time (RT). In Experiment 1, participants viewed a dynamic grid consisting of flashing blue, orange and white pixels and indicated whether the stimulus was predominantly blue or orange (using a response scale ranging from low-confidence blue to high-confidence orange), with the white pixels constituting non-diagnostic information. Increasing non-diagnostic information reduced both confidence and accuracy, generally slowed RTs, and led to an increase in the speed of errors. Experiment 2 replicated these results for a decision-only task, providing further support for the doubt-scaling model of confidence.

Indexed as

Decision MakingAdultFemaleHumansMaleMetacognitionPsychomotor PerformanceReaction TimeYoung AdultConfidenceDecision makingDoubt scalingEvidence accumulation

Identifiers

PMID38489145
PMCPMC11315710

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.