Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39072209›Full record

ArticleJournal of cognition2024

Subjective Understanding is Reduced by Mechanistic Framing.

Jeffrey C Zemla, Daniel Corral

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cognition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Jeffrey C ZemlaDepartment of Psychology, Syracuse University, US.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7334-4961
Daniel CorralDepartment of Psychology, Syracuse University, US.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6000-5757

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People often believe that they have a good understanding of how devices work (e.g., how a ballpoint pen works), despite having poor knowledge of their internal mechanics. We hypothesized that this bias occurs in part because people conflate mechanistic understanding with functional understanding of how devices work (e.g., how to operate a ballpoint pen). In two experiments, we found that increasing the salience of mechanistic information led to lower judgments of understanding for how devices work. In Experiment 1, we did this by showing participants either the internal parts of a device or an external, whole-object view of that same device. Those who saw the internal parts rated their understanding as less than those who saw a whole-object view. In Experiment 2, we removed the pictures and instead tested participants (without feedback) on their mechanistic or functional knowledge using true-or-false questions. Those who were tested on mechanistic knowledge rated their understanding of devices as less than those who were tested on functional knowledge.

Indexed as

explanationmetacognitionreasoningunderstanding

Identifiers

PMID39072209
PMCPMC11276545

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.