Integrating explicit reliability for optimal choices: effect of trustworthiness on decisions and metadecisions

A key challenge in today’s fast-paced digital world is to integrate information from various sources, which differ in their reliability. Yet, little is known about how explicit probabilistic information about the likelihood that a source provides correct information is used in decision-making. Here, we investigated how such explicit reliability markers are integrated and the extent to which individuals have metacognitive insight into this process. We developed a novel paradigm where participants viewed opinions from sources of varying reliability to make a choice between two options. After each decision, they rated how much they felt a given source influenced their choice. Using computational modelling, we estimated the effective reliability participants assigned to each source and how leaky their decision process was. Overall, we found that participants acted as if sources were more informative than they actually were, inflating the reliability they were communicated. Interestingly, we show that even though sources were explicitly labelled as unreliable, these sources biased choices, as if these were treated as moderately reliable. Additionally, the presence of sources known to be lying, reliably voting for the incorrect answer, impaired performance by increasing decision leakiness. Despite these biases, participants showed some metacognitive awareness of what influenced their choices: they were generally accurate in reporting the degree to which a source influenced them and were aware of the impact unreliable sources had on their decisions. These results suggest that people make suboptimal use of explicit source reliability, but have some awareness of their suboptimal choices.