Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39543057›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2025

Further perceptions of probability: Accurate, stepwise updating is contingent on prior information about the task and the response mode.

Mattias Forsgren, Peter Juslin, Ronald van den Berg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. 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

3 authors.

Mattias ForsgrenDepartment of Psychology, Uppsala University, P. O. Box 1225, 751 42, Uppsala, Sweden. mattias.forsgren@psyk.uu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0394-1626
Peter JuslinDepartment of Psychology, Uppsala University, P. O. Box 1225, 751 42, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9594-2153
Ronald van den BergDepartment of Psychology, Uppsala University, P. O. Box 1225, 751 42, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7353-5960

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To adapt to an uncertain world, humans must learn event probabilities. These probabilities may be stationary, such as that of rolling a 6 on a die, or changing over time, like the probability of rainfall over the year. Research on how people estimate and track changing probabilities has recently reopened an old epistemological issue. A small, mostly recent literature finds that people accurately track the probability and change their estimates only occasionally, resulting in staircase-shaped response patterns. This has been taken as evidence that people entertain beliefs about unknown, distal states of the world, which are tested against observations to produce discrete shifts between hypotheses. That idea stands in contrast to the claim that people learn by continuously updating associations between observed events. The purpose of this article is to investigate the generality and robustness of the accurate, staircase-shaped pattern. In two experiments, we find that the response pattern is contingent on the response mode and prior information about the generative process. Participants exist on continua of accuracy and staircase-ness and we only reproduce previous results when changing estimates is effortful and prior information is provided-the specific conditions of previous experiments. We conclude that explaining this solely through either hypotheses or associations is untenable. A complete theory of probability estimation requires the interaction of three components: (i) online tracking of observed data, (ii) beliefs about the unobserved "generative process," and (iii) a response updating process. Participants' overt estimates depend on how the specific task conditions jointly determine all three.

Indexed as

Probability LearningAdultHumansProbabilityYoung AdultAssociative learningHypothesis testingProbability estimationProbability learning

Identifiers

PMID39543057
PMCPMC12092534

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.