Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39916785›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024

The influence of different negative feedback on the decay of self-deception.

Juan Liu, Wenjun Ding, Liying Deng, Min Tan, Peipei Guan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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

5 authors.

Juan LiuSchool of Education Science, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, China.
Wenjun DingSchool of Education Science, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, China.
Liying DengSchool of Design, Guangxi Normal University, Guilin, China.
Min TanSchool of Education Science, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, China.
Peipei GuanKing's College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Though some studies have found the positive influences of moderate self-deception on individuals and society, there are many that have shown its negative influences on individuals and society. Long-term self-deception will have negative influences which could cause high individual losses and even social disasters. Therefore, it is essential to abate the decay of self-deception to avoid its negative influences and help individuals to better monitor themselves. Methods: In this research, we explored the impact of various types of negative feedback on the decay of self-deception using a forward-looking paradigm with three conditions: no-feedback, ambiguous negative feedback, and real negative feedback. The experiment under each condition was tested four times. The negative feedback was provided after Tests 2 and 3. Results: The results indicated that, in Test 1 of both Experiments 1 and 2, the answer group demonstrated notably stronger positive beliefs and a higher propensity for cheating compared to the control group. Additionally, self-deception was more pronounced under the no-feedback than under the negative feedback in the subsequent three tests. Furthermore, the condition of ambiguous negative feedback led to greater self-deception in the final three tests compared to the condition of real negative feedback in Experiment 2. The results also revealed that self-deception gradually diminished with real feedback in the answer group. Discussion: The findings showed that both ambiguous and real negative feedback reduce self-deception, although real negative feedback having a greater effect than ambiguous feedback. Additionally, the reduction of self-deception was fundamentally related to a decrease in unrealistic positive beliefs, and this decline in self-deception was also influenced by monetary rewards.

Indexed as

cheatingdecaynegative feedbackpositive beliefsself-deception

Identifiers

PMID39916785
PMCPMC11799280

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.