ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2026
Metacognition and diagnostic decision-making: short "blips" of knowledge and the consequences of overconfidence.
Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
When making decisions under uncertainty, we rely on the information we currently have. Presumably, the more information we have, the better our decisions turn out to be. What, though, drives our motivation to seek more information? The current research investigated people's confidence judgments in one's current information and their relationship to seeking more information when making diagnoses when presented with a sequence of medical symptoms. In Experiment 1, we explored people's confidence judgments in relation to the accumulation of information they received. In Experiment 2, we tested whether a participant's confidence levels would guide the decision to seek more information. The results showed that (1) people had the most overconfidence with a short period of exposure to medical knowledge (as opposed to a long period or none at all) and (2) that overconfidence was associated with choosing not to seek more information. In short, a "blip of knowledge" can lead to an illusion of knowing, which, in turn, could lead to a sub-optimal decision when it comes to medical diagnosing.
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.