Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41034484›Full record

ArticleCommunications psychology2025

Rewards bias self-evaluations of ability.

Jean Luo, Peter Mende-Siedlecki, Leor M Hackel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Rewards bias self-evaluations of ability.Communications psychology · 2025
    Article
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

3 authors.

Jean LuoDepartment of Psychology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. jeanluo@usc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-1563-1220
Peter Mende-SiedleckiDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5761-0182
Leor M HackelDepartment of Psychology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID41034484
PMCPMC12489122

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.