Knowing the Crowd Within: Combining Theory and Experience in Metacognitive Judgments

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott H. Fraundorf ◽  
Aaron S. Benjamin
Author(s):  
Fabian A. Ryffel ◽  
Werner Wirth

Abstract. The present two-study work aims to contribute to an understanding of the causes and consequences of perceived processing fluency. Regarding its causes, the experimental studies ( N1 = 399; N2 = 337) found that features of television reports (e.g., footage used, background music) can heighten perceptions of processing fluency. Regarding its consequences, it was found that heightened perceived fluency biases metacognitive judgments. Specifically, considering perceived knowledge in relation to actual knowledge, recipients experiencing fluency have been found to overestimate their knowledge about the issue depicted in the experimental stimuli. The resulting illusion of knowing was particularly pronounced under conditions of low involvement, indicating that the so-called ease-of-processing heuristic underlies the effect.


2019 ◽  
Vol 74 ◽  
pp. 102781
Author(s):  
Daniel T. Levin ◽  
Gautam Biswas ◽  
Joeseph S. Lappin ◽  
Marian Rushdy ◽  
Adriane E. Seiffert

Author(s):  
Lisa Vangsness ◽  
Michael E. Young

Recent publications have encouraged researchers to consider how metacognition affects users’ judgments of usability and workload by integrating metacognitive assessments with traditional testing paradigms. However, the repercussions of collecting these measures concurrently are unknown. We used a visual search task to determine how the frequency of metacognitive assessments affected metacognitive accuracy and performance. Frequent assessments did not impact performance on the focal task; however, they did reduce the accuracy of participants’ metacognitive judgments by about 7%. This finding suggests that researchers should consider context when selecting a metacognitive assessment strategy.


Author(s):  
Jackson Duncan-Reid ◽  
Jason S. McCarley

When individuals work together to make decisions in a signal detection task, they typically achieve greater sensitivity as a group than they could each achieve on their own. The present experiments investigate whether metacognitive, or Type 2, signal detection judgements would show a similar pattern of collaborative benefit. Thirty-two participants in Experiment 1 and sixty participants in Experiment 2 completed a signal detection task individually and in groups, and measures of Type 1 and Type 2 sensitivity were calculated from participants’ confidence judgments. Bayesian parameter estimates suggested that regardless of whether teams are given feedback on their performance (Experiment 1) or receive no feedback (Experiment 2), no credible differences were observed in metacognitive efficiency between the teams and the better members, nor between the teams and the worse members. These findings suggest that teams may self-assess their performance by deferring metacognitive judgments to the most metacognitively sensitive individual within the team, even without trial-by-trial feedback, rather than integrating their judgments and achieving increased metacognitive awareness of their own performance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document