Dataset Information

Do confidence ratings prime confidence?

ABSTRACT: Confidence ratings (CR) are one of the most frequently used measures in psychological research. However, recent evidence has suggested that eliciting CR from participants may result in changes to cognitive performance, so called reactivity. Here, we examine whether reactivity to CR can be better explained by added task-relevant introspection, or, alternatively, the unintentional priming of confidence-related beliefs. First, we compare participants' performance in a group making CR with a group making a task-irrelevant control rating, and a second group who made the same task-irrelevant rating, but with the word 'confident' included in the rating's wording. The results suggest that reactivity is driven by the presentation of the word 'confident', and reactivity does not require task-relevant introspection. Additionally, we show that rephrasing CR to remove the word 'confident' neutralises reactivity. This suggests that reactivity may represent a significant problem for researchers using CR, but rephrasing CR may remedy these concerns in relatively simple fashion.

SUBMITTER: Double KS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6557865 | biostudies-other | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Do confidence ratings prime confidence?

Double Kit S KS Birney Damian P DP

Psychonomic bulletin & review 20190601 3

Confidence ratings (CR) are one of the most frequently used measures in psychological research. However, recent evidence has suggested that eliciting CR from participants may result in changes to cognitive performance, so called reactivity. Here, we examine whether reactivity to CR can be better explained by added task-relevant introspection, or, alternatively, the unintentional priming of confidence-related beliefs. First, we compare participants' performance in a group making CR with a group m ...[more]

PMID: 30632106

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Women and black physicians encounter workplace challenges because of their gender and race. It is unclear whether these individuals are assessed with lower patient satisfaction or confidence ratings compared with white male physicians. Objective:To examine whether physician gender and race affect participant ratings in scenarios in which physician competence is challenged. Design, Setting, and Participants:This randomized trial enrolled a geographically diverse sample of 3592 online respondents in the United States who were recruited from 2 crowdsourcing platforms: Amazon Mechanical Turk (n?=?1741) and Lucid (n?=?1851). A 2?×?2 factorial design for the gender and race of simulated physicians was conducted between March 9 and July 25, 2018. Participants were excluded before intervention if they were younger than 18 years, were pregnant, or had a history of cancer or abdominal surgical procedures. Interventions:A clinical vignette was presented to the participant with a picture of the emergency department physician. Participants were randomly assigned to physicians with different gender and race, with 823 assigned to black women, 791 to black men, 828 to white women, and 835 to white men. A contradictory diagnosis from an online symptom checker introduced doubt about the clinical diagnosis. Main Outcomes and Measures:A composite outcome (range, 0-100, with 0 representing low patient confidence and satisfaction and 100 representing the maximum on the composite scale) measured participant (1) confidence in the physician, (2) satisfaction with care, (3) likelihood to recommend the physician, (4) trust in the physician's diagnosis, and (5) likelihood to request additional tests. Results:Among 3277 adult participants, complete data were available for 3215 (median age, 49 years [range, 18-89 years]; 1667 [52%] female; 2433 [76%] white). No significant differences were observed in participant satisfaction and physician confidence for the white male physician control physicians (mean composite score, 66.13 [95% CI, 64.76-67.51]) compared with white female (mean composite score, 66.50 [95% CI, 65.19-67.82]), black female (mean composite score, 67.36 [95% CI, 66.03-68.69]), and black male (mean composite score, 66.96 [95% CI, 65.55-68.36]) physicians. Machine learning with bayesian additive regression trees revealed no evidence of treatment effect heterogeneity as a function of participants' race, gender, racial prejudice, or sexism. Conclusions and Relevance:No significant differences were observed for simulated patients' evaluations of female or black physicians, suggesting that bias in favor of white male physicians is negligible in survey-based measures of patient satisfaction. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04190901.

Dataset Information

Do confidence ratings prime confidence?

Publications

Do confidence ratings prime confidence?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets