Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40802877›Full record

ArticleCognitive science2025

Deliberation in Guesstimation.

Vildan Salikutluk, Frank Jäkel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Vildan SalikutlukCentre for Cognitive Science, Technical University of Darmstadt.
Frank JäkelCentre for Cognitive Science, Technical University of Darmstadt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In many real-world settings, people often have to make judgments with incomplete information. Estimating unknown quantities without using precise quantitative modeling and data is called guesstimation, which is often needed in forecasting settings. Furthermore, research in education found that solving guesstimation problems builds general problem-solving skills. In this paper, we present an empirical investigation on how people solve guesstimation problems. We study their problem-solving behavior with think-aloud methods, and we identify solution strategies that are frequently used. In a two-response paradigm, we first ask for gut-feeling answers to guesstimation questions and then allow deliberation before a second answer is given. Comparing the quality of these two answers reveals that deliberation improves the answer quality significantly. In a second experiment, we additionally elicit participants' confidence about their deliberated answers by asking for an entire distribution instead of just a point estimate. We find that participants are generally overconfident in their answers. We discuss guesstimation tasks as suitable test-beds for studying human deliberative judgments in general and in the more specific context of improving forecasting through appropriate artificial intelligence tools.

Indexed as

JudgmentProblem SolvingAdultArtificial IntelligenceFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultDeliberationGuesstimationHuman experimentationJudgmentsMixed‐methodsProblem‐solving

Identifiers

PMID40802877
PMCPMC12349749

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.