ArticleScientific reports2025
The unskilled-and-unaware problem and performance feedback in monotonous, easily accustomed, and repetitive work.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The current research examined whether people predict their performance on monotonous, easily accustomed, and repetitive (MEAR) tasks accurately and confirm the effects of performance feedback on their MEAR work predictions. Considering typing on the keyboard as an MEAR task in modern society, 128 university students were asked to type a 12-digit number displayed on each monitor within 5 minutes, explaining that there would be 75 typing problems and participants would receive 20 yen per correct answer. Additionally, participants were informed that they could earn money by reaching a self-determined performance target, with the condition that if they did not reach their self-set goal, they would not receive any earnings. The main findings were as follows: Regardless of the performance levels of typing on keyboards, only 23% of the participants reached the goal, indicating that the absence of performance feedback led to individuals' overestimation of performance. In contrast, providing feedback significantly improved performance predictions: 76% of the participants reached the goal with feedback on their own performance, 70% with feedback on others' performance, and 88% with feedback on both their own and others' performance information. Specifically, the effects between one's own and others' performance feedback did not vary at statistically significant levels.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.