ArticleiScience2026
Deciding to simulate: Cognitive mechanisms of predicting the decisions of others.
Article in iScience, 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
Existing behavioral and neural evidence suggests that people rely on mental simulation when predicting others' decisions. If true, making predictions with a biased decision system should result in biased predictions. We tested this idea directly by biasing participants' risk valuation through adaptation to either high- or low-probability contexts and then asking them to predict the choices of three distinct agents (risk-average, risk-averse, risk-seeking). The adaptation manipulation biased participants' predictions for the risk-average and risk-averse agents, suggesting simulation with their own (biased) decision process when predicting these agents. In contrast, there was no adaptation effect for the risk-seeking agent. Similarly, participants' own risk tendencies correlated with predictions for the risk-average and risk-averse, but not the risk-seeking agent. Drift diffusion modeling analyses showed that this adaptation bias was the result of changes in participants' risk valuation parameter. Overall, these findings support simulation-based prediction while suggesting a modulating role of the other person's characteristics.
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.