ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Jumping to Conclusions: Mechanisms of Cognitive Control in Decision-Making Under Uncertainty.
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Sex differences in neurocognitive response to metacognitive training in first-episode psychosis: Implications for personalized interventions.Archives of women's mental health · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cognitive control encompasses mental processes that regulate thoughts and actions to achieve specific goals. It is essential in decision-making, facilitating attention management, impulse inhibition, and adaptation to new information-skills critical for rational choices, particularly under uncertainty. In jumping to conclusions (JTC), where individuals make premature decisions based on limited evidence, cognitive control deficits are often implicated. Cognitive stability helps maintain focus and resist distractions but may lead to premature conclusions if excessive. In contrast, cognitive flexibility supports adaptive decision-making by incorporating new information but may foster hasty decisions if insufficient. This study examined JTC and cognitive control mechanisms in 200 university students. Participants completed the Box Task under varied uncertainty conditions, tasks assessing stability (Flanker-Simon Task) and flexibility (Letter-Number Task), and the BIS/BAS questionnaire. Cluster analysis identified three evidence-gathering profiles: minimal, moderate, and extensive. Significant differences were found between clusters in both flexibility and stability, with individuals in the extensive evidence-gathering cluster showing superior cognitive control. However, higher uncertainty amplified the reliance on flexibility, highlighting its role in adapting to challenging conditions, while stability remained unaffected. No significant association emerged between BIS/BAS indices and Box Task performance. These findings emphasize the interplay between uncertainty, cognitive control, and decision-making, underscoring the need for further research to refine interventions targeting decision-making biases.
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.