ArticleScientific reports2026
Stereotypic beliefs dominate reversal learning.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Counterstereotypic knowledge acquisition may undermine discriminatory thinking. However, researchers do not yet know how readily people procure stereotype-related information (i.e., stereotypic vs. counterstereotypic). Accordingly, we employed a probabilistic reversal-learning task in combination with computational modeling to explore the dynamics of person learning when targets exhibited both stereotypic and counterstereotypic behavior (i.e., food choices; women prefer salads, men favor burgers). We expected that stereotypic (vs. counterstereotypic) outcomes would dominate reversal learning, reflecting the potency of stereotype-based presumptions. Behavioral and computational analyses corroborated this prediction. First, participants learned stereotypic outcomes faster and more accurately than counterstereotypic outcomes. Second, participants were more likely to repeat stereotypic than counterstereotypic responses following positive reinforcement. Third, model estimates revealed that participants adjusted their choices following contingency reversals more slowly when newly reinforced outcomes were counterstereotypic rather than stereotypic. Collectively, these findings underscore the power of stereotypes and speak to the challenges of belief updating in daily life.
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.