Search

Previous research has shown that people are more influenced by advisors who are objectively more accurate, but also by advisors who tend to agree with their own initial opinions. The present experiments extend these ideas to consider people's choices of who they receive advice from-the process of source selection. Across a series of nine experiments, participants were first exposed to advisors who differed in objective accuracy, the likelihood of agreeing with the participants' judgments, or both, and then were given choice over who would advise them across a series of decisions. Participants saw these advisors in the context of perceptual decision and general knowledge tasks, sometimes with feedback provided and sometimes without. We found evidence that people can discern accurate from inaccurate advice even in the absence of feedback, but that without feedback they are biased to select advisors who tend to agree with them. When choosing between advisors who are accurate vs. likely to agree with them, participants overwhelmingly choose accurate advisors when feedback is available, but show wide individual differences in preference when feedback is absent. These findings extend previous studies of advice influence to characterise patterns of advisor choice, with implications for how people select information sources and learn accordingly., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Jaquiery, Yeung. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Maternal depression, especially when severe and long-lasting, is associated with adverse mental health outcomes in children. We aimed to assess, for children of mothers with persistent postnatal depression symptoms, whether positive father behaviours would decrease risk for conduct and emotional symptoms., Methods: Using data from 4009, mother-father-child trios from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children we examined associations between maternal depression trajectories and positive father behavioural profiles across the postnatal period (child age: 2-21 months), and child conduct and emotional symptom trajectories across middle childhood (child age: 3.5-11 years)., Results: Positive father behaviour was much less common in families where mothers experienced high-persistent depression symptoms (33%) than in families where mothers did not (56%); of note, these fathers also had higher levels of depression symptoms. Using person-level analysis, exposure to high-persistent maternal depression symptoms increased child risk for a high trajectory of both conduct (odds ratio, 2.69; 95% CI: 2.00, 3.60) and emotional symptoms (odds ratio, 2.47; 95% CI: 1.83, 3.31). However, positive father behaviour (toward child and mother) reduced the odds of following high trajectories of conduct symptoms by 9% ( x  = 4.52, p  < .001) and of emotional symptoms by 10% ( x  = 4.12, p  < .001), even after controlling for father depression symptoms. Using variable-level analysis, we did not identify an interaction between maternal depression and positive father behaviour. For conduct problems, we identified a direct effect of positive father behaviour and lower conduct problems. For emotional symptoms, father behaviour interacted with child age, where the largest decrease was seen at age 9, when symptoms were highest across the sample., Conclusions: Positive father behaviour can be protective against chronic mental health problems for children exposed to persistent maternal postnatal depression symptoms., Competing Interests: Edward Barker is a member of the Editorial Advisory Board for JCPP Advances. The remaining authors have declared that they have no competing or potential conflicts of interest., (© 2022 The Authors. JCPP Advances published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.)

Background: Responsibility judgements have important consequences in human society. Previous research focused on how someone's responsibility determines the outcome they deserve, for example, whether they are rewarded or punished. Here, in a pre-registered study (Stage 1 Registered Report: https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16480.2), we investigate the opposite link: How outcome ownership influences responsibility attributions in a social context.  Methods: In an online study, participants in a group of three perform a majority vote decision-making task between gambles that can lead to a reward or no reward. Only one group member receives the outcome and participants evaluate their and the other players' responsibility for the obtained outcome. Results: We found that outcome ownership increases responsibility attributions even when the control over an outcome is similar. Moreover, ownership had an effect on the valence bias: participants' higher responsibility attributions for positive vs negative outcomes was stronger for players who received the outcome. Finally, this effect was more pronounced when people rated their own responsibility as compared to when they were rating another's player responsibility. Conclusions: The findings of this study reveal how credit attributions can be biased toward particular individuals who receive outcomes as a result of collective work, both when people judge their own and someone else's responsibility., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2022 Jaquiery M and El Zein M.)

Background: Responsibility judgements have important consequences in human society. Previous research focused on how someone's responsibility determines the outcome they deserve, for example, whether they are rewarded or punished. Here, in a pre-registered study (Stage 1 Registered Report: https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16480.2), we investigate the opposite link: How outcome ownership influences responsibility attributions in a social context.  Methods: In an online study, participants in a group of three perform a majority vote decision-making task between gambles that can lead to a reward or no reward. Only one group member receives the outcome and participants evaluate their and the other players' responsibility for the obtained outcome. Results: We found that outcome ownership increases responsibility attributions even when the control over an outcome is similar. Moreover, ownership had an effect on the valence bias: participants' higher responsibility attributions for positive vs negative outcomes was stronger for players who received the outcome. Finally, this effect was more pronounced when people rated their own responsibility as compared to when they were rating another's player responsibility. Conclusions: The findings of this study reveal how credit attributions can be biased toward particular individuals who receive outcomes as a result of collective work, both when people judge their own and someone else's responsibility., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2021 Jaquiery M and El Zein M.)

Responsibility judgements have important consequences in human society. Previous research focused on how someone's responsibility determines the outcome they deserve, for example, whether they are rewarded or punished. Here, we investigate the opposite link: How outcome ownership influences responsibility attributions in a social context. Participants in a group of three perform a majority vote decision-making task between gambles that can lead to a reward or no reward. Only one group member receives the outcome and participants evaluate their and the other players' responsibility for the obtained outcome. Two hypotheses are tested: 1) Whether outcome ownership increases responsibility attributions even when the control over an outcome is similar. 2) Whether people's tendency to attribute higher responsibility for positive vs negative outcomes will be stronger for players who received the outcome. The findings of this study may help reveal how credit attributions can be biased toward particular individuals who receive outcomes as a result of collective work., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2021 Jaquiery M and El Zein M.)

The congruency sequence effect (CSE) refers to the finding that the effect of cognitive conflict is smaller following conflicting, incongruent trials than after non-conflicting, congruent trials in conflict tasks, such as the Stroop, Simon, and flanker tasks. This is typically interpreted as an upregulation of cognitive control in response to conflict. Weissman, Jiang, & Egner (2014) investigated whether the CSE appears in these three tasks and a further variant where task-irrelevant distractors precede the target (prime-probe task), in the absence of learning and memory confounds in samples collected online. They found significant CSEs only in the prime-probe and Simon tasks, suggesting that the effect is more robust in tasks where the distractor can be translated into a response faster than the target. In this Registered Replication Report we collected data online from samples approx. 2.5 times larger than in the original study for each of the four tasks to investigate whether the task-related differences in the magnitude of the CSE are replicable (Nmin = 115, Nmax = 130). Our findings extend but do not contradict the original results: Bayesian analyses suggested that the CSE was present in all four tasks in RT but only in the Simon task in accuracy. The size of the effect did not differ between tasks, and the size of the congruency effect was not correlated with the size of the CSE across participants. These findings suggest it might be premature to conclude that the difference in the speed of distractor- vs target-related response activation is a determinant of the size of cross-trial modulations of control. The practical implications of our results for online data collection in cognitive control research are also discussed.

Understanding how people rate their confidence is critical for the characterization of a wide range of perceptual, memory, motor and cognitive processes. To enable the continued exploration of these processes, we created a large database of confidence studies spanning a broad set of paradigms, participant populations and fields of study. The data from each study are structured in a common, easy-to-use format that can be easily imported and analysed using multiple software packages. Each dataset is accompanied by an explanation regarding the nature of the collected data. At the time of publication, the Confidence Database (which is available at https://osf.io/s46pr/) contained 145 datasets with data from more than 8,700 participants and almost 4 million trials. The database will remain open for new submissions indefinitely and is expected to continue to grow. Here we show the usefulness of this large collection of datasets in four different analyses that provide precise estimations of several foundational confidence-related effects.