ArticleNature communications2025
Introspective access to value-based multi-attribute choice processes.
Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computational analysis of 100 K choice dilemmas: Decision attributes, trade-off structures, and model-based prediction.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Invisible Gorillas in the Mind: Internal Inattentional Blindness and the Prospect of Introspection Training.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
People routinely choose between options varying on multiple attributes - homes to rent, movies to watch, and so on. Here, we test how much awareness people have of the mental processes underlying these choices. We develop a method to quantify awareness of value-based multi-attribute choice processes that accounts for diverse choice strategies. Across five studies, participants make choices and then report how they believe they made them. We use computational modeling to identify the process revealed in their choices, and compare it to their self-reports to quantify individuals' accuracy about their choice process. While we observe substantial variation in accuracy, participants are often highly accurate about their choice process - more accurate than predicted by a sample of decision scientists - and more accurate than informed third-party observers, suggesting evidence for introspection. These results challenge notions that we are strangers to ourselves and instead suggest that people often know how they made value-based choices.
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.