ArticleCommunications psychology2025
Rewards bias self-evaluations of ability.
Article in Communications psychology, 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.
- Rewards bias self-evaluations of ability.Communications psychology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
How do people learn about their own abilities? Often, people receive rewards that offer information about their performance level. Yet, even when two people perform equivalently on a task, they may receive disparate rewards. In these cases, could rewards still influence self-evaluations of ability? In two behavioral experiments, we asked whether people feel more capable and confident when they receive more rewards, even when their performance is held constant, and they know how they objectively performed. Participants played a perceptual game in which they received trial-by-trial accuracy feedback; a staircase procedure held their objective performance constant. However, participants were assigned to either a high or low-reward condition, which varied the probability of receiving a reward for a correct answer. In Experiment 1 (N = 340), we found evidence that rewards bias overall self-evaluations of ability after the task-particularly estimations of objective accuracy. Next, in Experiment 2 (N = 342), we examined whether reward feedback would inflate participants' trial-by-trial expectations of their own accuracy before each round of the game. Results indicated that participants updated their expectations to a greater extent when a correct response was accompanied with a reward. These findings suggest that rewards enhance how much people integrate accuracy feedback into their dynamic self-beliefs.
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.