ArticleJournal of experimental psychology. General2025
Algorithmic personalization of information can cause inaccurate generalization and overconfidence.
Article in Journal of experimental psychology. General, 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.
- Working memory, exploration, and cognitive development.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2026Review
- eHealth literacy, health self-efficacy, and health-promoting lifestyle among vocational college students: a latent profile and mediation analysis study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
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
Personalization algorithms are widely used online to deliver recommendations fine-tuned to individual users. This specificity comes at the cost of the diversity of information presented to users, limiting exposure to alternative perspectives and potentially reinforcing existing beliefs. We investigated the degree to which personalization can hinder the acquisition of new knowledge of categories. We asked participants to learn about alien categories under different levels of personalization and tested their knowledge using a postlearning categorization task. Our results show that learners in personalized environments sample feature information more selectively during the learning phase and develop inaccurate representations about the categories. Critically, they also report inflated confidence about their inaccurate decisions for categories for which they had little exposure. Our results suggest that personalization can distort learners' understanding of the environment, bias information sampling, and induce incorrect generalization of knowledge. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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.