ArticleScientific reports2025
Pause before action: Waiting short time as a simple and resource-rational boost.
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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Many workers today engage in straightforward judgment tasks, increasing the need for interventions to improve accuracy. We propose a resource-rational and psychohygienic intervention, "wait short time", which introduces a brief pause before displaying alternatives. This pause works as a harmonious triad: it clears the mind of prior judgment bias, restores present attention, and prepares the mind for future judgments; and all this without additional instructions. Based on a resource rationality framework, cognitive costs (e.g., irritation, cognitive conflict) are associated with prolonged thinking because of humans limited cognitive resources. Therefore, there should be an appropriately short thinking time to achieve higher accuracy with minimal workload. We investigated the effectiveness of the proposed intervention both theoretically and empirically. The computer simulations demonstrated that, under assumptions of limited cognitive resources, there was an optimal time at the early stages for maximizing total benefits. The results of behavioral experiment was consistent with the theoretical findings: Providing a waiting time (1 s or 2.5 s) improved judgment accuracy, but cognitive conflicts increased over time and an unnecessarily long time (2.5 s) induced more subjective irritation. Consequently, an appropriate time (1 s) could enhance judgment accuracy with less workload. We discuss the implications and limitations of the proposed intervention.
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.