The Confidence Database

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

The retrospective analysis of Antarctic tracking data project

The Retrospective Analysis of Antarctic Tracking Data (RAATD) is a Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research project led jointly by the Expert Groups on Birds and Marine Mammals and Antarctic Biodiversity Informatics, and endorsed by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. RAATD consolidated tracking data for multiple species of Antarctic meso- and top-predators to identify Areas of Ecological Significance. These datasets and accompanying syntheses provide a greater understanding of fundamental ecosystem processes in the Southern Ocean, support modelling of predator distributions under future climate scenarios and create inputs that can be incorporated into decision making processes by management authorities. In this data paper, we present the compiled tracking data from research groups that have worked in the Antarctic since the 1990s. The data are publicly available through biodiversity.aq and the Ocean Biogeographic Information System. The archive includes tracking data from over 70 contributors across 12 national Antarctic programs, and includes data from 17 predator species, 4060 individual animals, and over 2.9 million observed locations

The retrospective analysis of Antarctic tracking data project

The Retrospective Analysis of Antarctic Tracking Data (RAATD) is a Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research project led jointly by the Expert Groups on Birds and Marine Mammals and Antarctic Biodiversity Informatics, and endorsed by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. RAATD consolidated tracking data for multiple species of Antarctic meso- and top-predators to identify Areas of Ecological Significance. These datasets and accompanying syntheses provide a greater understanding of fundamental ecosystem processes in the Southern Ocean, support modelling of predator distributions under future climate scenarios and create inputs that can be incorporated into decision making processes by management authorities. In this data paper, we present the compiled tracking data from research groups that have worked in the Antarctic since the 1990s. The data are publicly available through biodiversity.aq and the Ocean Biogeographic Information System. The archive includes tracking data from over 70 contributors across 12 national Antarctic programs, and includes data from 17 predator species, 4060 individual animals, and over 2.9 million observed locations.Supplementary Figure S1: Filtered location data (black) and tag deployment locations (red) for each species. Maps are Lambert Azimuthal projections extending from 90° S to 20° S.Supplementary Table S1: Names and coordinates of the major study sites in the Southern Ocean and on the Antarctic Continent where tracking devices were deployed on the selected species (indicated by their 4-letter codes in the last column).Online Table 1: Description of fields (column names) in the metadata and data files.Supranational committees and organisations including the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research Life Science Group and BirdLife International. National institutions and foundations, including but not limited to Argentina (Dirección Nacional del Antártico), Australia (Australian Antarctic program; Australian Research Council; Sea World Research and Rescue Foundation Inc., IMOS is a national collaborative research infrastructure, supported by the Australian Government and operated by a consortium of institutions as an unincorporated joint venture, with the University of Tasmania as Lead Agent), Belgium (Belgian Science Policy Office, EU Lifewatch ERIC), Brazil (Brazilian Antarctic Programme; Brazilian National Research Council (CNPq/MCTI) and CAPES), France (Agence Nationale de la Recherche; Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales; Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB; www.fondationbiodiversite.fr) in the context of the CESAB project “RAATD”; Fondation Total; Institut Paul-Emile Victor; Programme Zone Atelier de Recherches sur l’Environnement Antarctique et Subantarctique; Terres Australes et Antarctiques Françaises), Germany (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Hanse-Wissenschaftskolleg - Institute for Advanced Study), Italy (Italian National Antarctic Research Program; Ministry for Education University and Research), Japan (Japanese Antarctic Research Expedition; JSPS Kakenhi grant), Monaco (Fondation Prince Albert II de Monaco), New Zealand (Ministry for Primary Industries - BRAG; Pew Charitable Trusts), Norway (Norwegian Antarctic Research Expeditions; Norwegian Research Council), Portugal (Foundation for Science and Technology), South Africa (Department of Environmental Affairs; National Research Foundation; South African National Antarctic Programme), UK (Darwin Plus; Ecosystems Programme at the British Antarctic Survey; Natural Environment Research Council; WWF), and USA (U.S. AMLR Program of NOAA Fisheries; US Office of Polar Programs).http://www.nature.com/sdataam2021Mammal Research Institut

Do Prospective Confidence Ratings Enhance Problem-Solving?

Previous research has shown that eliciting retrospective confidence ratings during problem-solving enhances performance in high self-efficacy individuals but impairs performance in low self-efficacy individuals. In the current study, we examined whether judgments of solvability, a metacognitive rating made prior to participants’ first-order responses are similarly reactive and whether, like retrospective confidence ratings, this effect is moderated by pre-existing self-efficacy. In two experiments, we showed that judgments of solvability are reactive, but this effect is not moderated by pre-existing self-efficacy. We argue that eliciting metacognitive ratings prior to a participant’s response changes metacognitive control, without necessarily activating self-evaluative thoughts. These results are encouraging for the use of judgments of solvability as an education intervention

Prospective versus reactive strategies in microworld performance

Cognitive flexibility is the ability to adapt to changing contingencies and demands over time. It is often assessed by complex problem solving tasks (e.g., microworld simulations), which require individuals to maintain a goal state over trials. Yet typically analyses summarises performance by mean accuracy per person, which assumes performance is a constant and ignores the trial-by-trial trajectory of individuals that reveal strategy . We tested n = 83 psychology students aged 16 to 45 in a microworld task under different conditions of stochasticity and delay. We modelled trial-by-trial performance according to a prospective model of the true task contingencies versus a reactive strategy adapting to feedback from the last trial,. Most individuals (~66%) appeared to adopt a reactive strategy, however when the task contingencies were immediate, people were more likely to act prospectively. Performance in the microworld task depends on the strategy which varies by person and with the task contingencies

How much can people fake on the dark triad? A meta-analysis and systematic review of instructed faking

Prior meta-analyses demonstrate that people can intentionally distort Big Five personality scores when instructed. As yet, there is no equivalent meta-analysis addressing instructed faking on the dark triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy). Therefore, we review mean score changes to the dark triad domains and facets under instructed faking. Due to insufficient k for meta-analysis, narcissism and Machiavellianism were systematically reviewed alongside psychopathy. The systematic review revealed inconsistent findings for narcissism and Machiavellianism with several effects in the opposite direction than expected. The psychopathy meta-analysis showed that: (a) scores were significantly lower under fake good compared to answer honestly instructions (d = −0.40); and (b) scores were significantly higher under fake bad compared to answer honestly instructions (d = 1.88). Subgroup analyses revealed significant score decreases under fake good instructions for both primary (d = −0.56) and secondary psychopathy (d = −0.96), and a significant score increase under fake bad instructions for primary (d = 1.69) and secondary psychopathy (d = 1.50). We conclude that dark triad measures are fakeable to a similar extent as the Big Five, and discuss the relevance of our findings for dark triad assessment in several applied contexts