Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40940385›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Spectators lead to overconfidence and risk-taking in males in a motor task.

Fabian Pelzer, Kai Leisge, Christian Kaczmarek, Sabine Schaefer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 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

4 authors.

Fabian PelzerInstitute of Sport Sciences, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Kai LeisgeInstitute of Sport Sciences, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Christian KaczmarekInstitute of Sport Sciences, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Sabine SchaeferInstitute of Sport Sciences, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany. sabine.schaefer@uni-saarland.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We often perform motor tasks in front of other people, and this may help or hinder our performances. Previous research mainly focused on changes in motor performance, and less is known about spectator influences on performance predictions. An accurate performance prediction in motor tasks is important, as it supports optimal performance. The present study examined whether being observed by spectators influences not only performance, but also performance predictions in a motor task. We tested 341 participants on a speeded cup-stacking task in a within-subjects design: co-acting (performing concurrently with others) versus performing alone in front of an audience. In half of the trials, participants predicted how many cups they would be able to stack in the upcoming trial. Overconfidence, by predicting performances that were too high, resulted in failed trials. Being watched by others led to motor performance decrements. Both males and females left a safety margin in their performance predictions in the co-acting condition. Being watched by others led males to increase their overconfidence and failure rate, whereas females left a safety margin in their predictions, maintaining a stable failure rate in front of spectators. Our results indicate that spectators not only influence motor performance, but also performance predictions.

Indexed as

Psychomotor PerformanceRisk-TakingAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleTask Performance and AnalysisYoung AdultGenderMotor taskPerformance predictionRisk-takingSpectator effects

Identifiers

PMID40940385
PMCPMC12432250

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.