ArticleCognitive processing2026
Gestalt approach and cognitive fallacies: mitigating negative recency and positive recency.
Article in Cognitive processing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
This study examined whether Gestalt-based manipulations can reduce individual's tendency to follow negative recency (NR) or positive recency (PR) by inducing their perception that events are not related. Two types of manipulation - grouping and closure - were introduced through a series of Coin Prediction Tasks. In the Grouping-based Coin Prediction Task (G-CPT), participants were more likely to exhibit NR or PR tendencies when past outcomes and predictions were presented within the same trial compared to when they were presented in separate trials. In the Closure-based Coin Prediction Task (C-CPT), previous results ending with a streak of a dominant event elicited more NR or PR responses, whereas previous outcomes ending with a non-dominant event reduced these fallacies. Overall, this study provides evidence that Gestalt-based manipulations can mitigate cognitive fallacies. Our findings emphasize the importance of Gestalt framing in probabilistic decision-making contexts. Limitations and directions for future research are also discussed.
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.