Cited by 110Visual perception and processing mechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

The impact of evidence reliability on sensitivity and bias in decision confidence.

Open access
Boldt, Annika, de Gardelle, Vincent, Yeung, Nick·2017·Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Abstract

Human observers effortlessly and accurately judge their probability of being correct in their decisions, suggesting that metacognitive evaluation is an integral part of decision making. It remains a challenge for most models of confidence, however, to explain how metacognitive judgments are formed and which internal signals influence them. While the decision-making literature has suggested that confidence is based on privileged access to the evidence that gives rise to the decision itself, other lines of research on confidence have commonly taken the view of a multicue model of confidence. The present study aims at manipulating one such cue: the perceived reliability of evidence supporting an initial decision. Participants made a categorical judgment of the average color of an array of eight colored shapes, for which we critically manipulated both the distance of the mean color from the category boundary (evidence strength) and the variability of colors across the eight shapes (evidence reliability). Our results indicate that evidence reliability has a stronger impact on confidence than evidence strength. Specifically, we found that evidence reliability affects metacognitive readout, the mapping from subjectively experienced certainty to expressed confidence, allowing participants to adequately adjust their confidence ratings to match changes in objective task performance across conditions. (PsycINFO Database Record

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/xhp0000404

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Confidence judgments are sensitive to the variability in perceptual evidence, although sometimes to a greater or lesser degree than predicted by an ideal observer model.

    “A number of studies have presented evidence that confidence judgments are sensitive to the variability in perceptual evidence, although sometimes to a greater or lesser degree than predicted by an ideal observer model (Boldt et al. 2017, Spence et al. 2016, Zylberberg et al. 2014).”

    From Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Boldt et al. 2017

    The Results (Effects of Evidence Mean and Variance on Confidence; page unavailable) show that higher stimulus variance lowered confidence, even in conditions matched for task difficulty. They also report a difference from the normative expectation based on accuracy, but our copy does not compare the size of the variance effect with predictions from an ideal-observer model. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Boldt, A., de Gardelle, V., & Yeung, N.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Boldt, Annika
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
Published
2017-08
Volume
43
Issue
8
Pages
1520-1531
ISSN
  • 0096-1523 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1277
OpenAlex
W2605154204
Cited by
110
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 4
FWCI
5.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
metacognition, decision confidence, reliability of evidence, quality of evidence, confidence bias, categorical judgment, variability, confidence calibration
MeSH terms
Metacognition, Adolescent, Adult, Color Perception, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Judgment, Male, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review