Suppr超能文献

跨被试的信心与准确性的相关性:信心数据库的元分析。

Across-subject correlation between confidence and accuracy: A meta-analysis of the Confidence Database.

机构信息

School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, 654 Cherry Str. NW, Atlanta, GA, 30332, USA.

出版信息

Psychon Bull Rev. 2022 Aug;29(4):1405-1413. doi: 10.3758/s13423-022-02063-7. Epub 2022 Feb 7.

Abstract

If one friend confidently tells us to buy Product A while another friend thinks that Product B is better but is not confident, we may go with the advice of our confident friend. Should we? The relationship between people's confidence and accuracy has been of great interest in many fields, especially in high-stakes situations like eyewitness testimony. However, there is still little consensus about how much we should trust someone's overall confidence level. Here, we examine the across-subject relationship between average accuracy and average confidence in 213 unique datasets from the Confidence Database. This approach allows us to empirically address this issue with unprecedented statistical power and check for the presence of various moderators. We find an across-subject correlation between average accuracy and average confidence of R = .22. Importantly, this relationship is much stronger for memory than for perception tasks ("domain effect"), as well as for confidence scales with fewer points ("granularity effect"). These results show that we should take one's confidence seriously (and perhaps buy Product A) and suggest several factors that moderate the relative consistency of how people make confidence judgments.

摘要

如果一个朋友自信地告诉我们购买产品 A,而另一个朋友认为产品 B 更好但不自信,我们可能会听从自信朋友的建议。我们应该这样做吗?在许多领域,包括在证人证词等高风险情况下,人们的信心和准确性之间的关系一直是人们极大关注的问题。然而,对于我们应该在多大程度上信任某人的整体信心水平,目前仍没有达成共识。在这里,我们在“置信度数据库”的 213 个独特数据集的跨主题关系中检查了平均准确性和平均置信度之间的关系。这种方法使我们能够以前所未有的统计能力来解决这个问题,并检查各种调节因素的存在。我们发现,平均准确性和平均置信度之间的跨主题相关性为 R =.22。重要的是,这种关系在记忆任务中比在感知任务中更强(“领域效应”),并且在置信度等级点数较少的情况下更强(“粒度效应”)。这些结果表明,我们应该认真对待一个人的信心(也许应该购买产品 A),并提出了一些调节因素,这些因素可以调节人们做出信心判断的相对一致性。

相似文献

4
Confidence judgments interfere with perceptual decision making.置信判断会干扰知觉决策。
Sci Rep. 2024 Jun 19;14(1):14133. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-64575-7.
5
How to measure metacognition.如何测量元认知。
Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Jul 15;8:443. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00443. eCollection 2014.
6

引用本文的文献

1
Challenging the Bayesian confidence hypothesis in perceptual decision-making.挑战贝叶斯置信度假设在知觉决策中的作用。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024 Nov 26;121(48):e2410487121. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2410487121. Epub 2024 Nov 22.

本文引用的文献

3
Sources of Metacognitive Inefficiency.元认知效率低下的根源。
Trends Cogn Sci. 2021 Jan;25(1):12-23. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2020.10.007. Epub 2020 Nov 16.
4
A contrast of meta and metafor packages for meta-analyses in R.R语言中用于荟萃分析的meta和metafor包对比
Ecol Evol. 2020 Sep 14;10(20):10916-10921. doi: 10.1002/ece3.6747. eCollection 2020 Oct.
5
6
The nature of metacognitive inefficiency in perceptual decision making.元认知效率在知觉决策中的本质。
Psychol Rev. 2021 Jan;128(1):45-70. doi: 10.1037/rev0000249. Epub 2020 Jul 16.
7
The Confidence Database.信心数据库。
Nat Hum Behav. 2020 Mar;4(3):317-325. doi: 10.1038/s41562-019-0813-1. Epub 2020 Feb 3.
8
Subjective Confidence Predicts Information Seeking in Decision Making.主观信心预测决策中的信息寻求。
Psychol Sci. 2018 May;29(5):761-778. doi: 10.1177/0956797617744771. Epub 2018 Apr 2.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验