‼️Issue 2: info seeking for fake news **did not** increase accurate fake news detection: participants remain no better than chance at detecting fake news! (5/6)

We find that confidence indeed drives info seeking (1️⃣, plot B) and confirmation biases (3️⃣), yet we identify two crucial issues.
❗Issue 1: confidence for fake news items does not reliably reflect accuracy (plot C), thus failing to drive information seeking towards the least accurate items. (4/6)

Here, we tested whether these 3 principles hold in the context of fake news: 314 American adults rated news headlines' veracity, gave their confidence and could decide to seek additional info (A). When seeking info, they were presented the full news article before finalising their decision (B).(3/6)

In Exp.2, participants were only trained on one difficulty level (easy/hard) and experienced a sudden in-/decrease in trial difficulty in the testing phase, directly leading to an in-/decrease in overall information seeking to maintain performance. (6/7)

However, in Exp.2, an easy/hard training also induced over/underconfidence but respectively INcreased/DEcreased overall info seeking, an effect that was unmediated by confidence. At the trial level, info seeking was still driven by trial-level confidence. (4/7)

Decision confidence is known to drive information seeking, but what happens when confidence is causally manipulated? In two experiments, we induced under- and overconfidence through a comparative feedback (Exp.1) or a training difficulty manipulation (Exp.2) and looked at information-seeking. (2/7)