ArticleNeuroscience of consciousness2026
Confidence in naturalistic decision making.
Article in Neuroscience of consciousness, 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
Prior research on confidence in perceptual decision making has almost exclusively used simple, static stimuli. While this work has led to many insights, it remains unclear how complex, real-world factors affect confidence judgments. To address this question, we developed a new task where participants watched short video clips and answered questions about their content by typing their answers and providing confidence on a 0-100 scale. We manipulated five variables related to the video clips-affective states induced by the clips (valence and arousal), prior information about the clips (contextual information coming from prior clips from the same movie and whether those clips were in correct or reverse chronological order), and heuristic cues about task difficulty (group size, quantified as the number of people shown). We found that arousal had a U-shaped effect on accuracy but an inverted-U-shaped effect on confidence. In addition, group size, event chronology, and the number of prior clips from the same movie affected confidence, but not accuracy. A second experiment, in which participants chose among a fixed set of options, replicated all these effects except for the effect of event chronology on confidence. These findings demonstrate that a range of factors- including affect, priors, and heuristic information- contribute selectively to confidence under natural viewing conditions. More broadly, these results highlight major differences in how decisions and confidence incorporate information and begin to reveal the possible sources of metacognitive inefficiency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.