Intellectual humility links to metacognitive ability

IF 2.6 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Personality and Individual Differences Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-10 DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2024.113028
Helen Fischer , Astrid Kause , Markus Huff
{"title":"Intellectual humility links to metacognitive ability","authors":"Helen Fischer ,&nbsp;Astrid Kause ,&nbsp;Markus Huff","doi":"10.1016/j.paid.2024.113028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Intellectual humility is increasingly recognized as a cognitive virtue that helps foster truth-seeking and compromise, and mitigating polarization. Yet the current body of evidence grapples with a striking contradiction: The prevailing theoretical account suggests that intellectual humility hinges on metacognitive ability—the capacity to introspect on one's own performance which manifests in assigning due confidence to the varying accuracy of one's performance. However, empirical research testing this <em>metacognitive</em> a<em>bility account of intellectual humility</em> has yielded inconsistent results. Here, we introduce a cognitive science approach informed by Signal Detection Theory, allowing for a more nuanced separation of metacognitive ability from correlated but distinct concepts (i.e., confidence and task performance). We conduct a national survey study among a national US sample (<em>N</em> = 999) involving the interpretation of one of the most heavily contested domains—climate change—lending itself for an investigation into how intellectual humility relates to cognitive processes in domains where it is most needed. To gauge participants' ability to distinguish true from false interpretations of evidence (i.e., task performance), we presented them with four summaries of fictitious studies on renewable energy, followed by 2-alternative forced choice questions that assessed their accuracy and confidence in their responses. Results showed that firstly, more intellectually humble citizens performed better at discerning correct from incorrect interpretations of the presented evidence. Secondly, more intellectually humble citizens exhibited a heightened capacity to adjust their confidence levels to the varying accuracy of their evidence interpretations–indicating higher metacognitive ability—and this association was robust to accounting for their superior task performance, and other preregistered covariates. And thirdly, in contrast to intuitive notions, more intellectually humble citizens did not exhibit lower metacognitive bias, the inclination to report lower (vs. higher) confidence in general. By highlighting the role of metacognitive ability in intellectual humility, the current study delivers empirical evidence for the ancient notion that epistemic virtues may involve metacognitive ability.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48467,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Individual Differences","volume":"238 ","pages":"Article 113028"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality and Individual Differences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886924004884","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Intellectual humility is increasingly recognized as a cognitive virtue that helps foster truth-seeking and compromise, and mitigating polarization. Yet the current body of evidence grapples with a striking contradiction: The prevailing theoretical account suggests that intellectual humility hinges on metacognitive ability—the capacity to introspect on one's own performance which manifests in assigning due confidence to the varying accuracy of one's performance. However, empirical research testing this metacognitive ability account of intellectual humility has yielded inconsistent results. Here, we introduce a cognitive science approach informed by Signal Detection Theory, allowing for a more nuanced separation of metacognitive ability from correlated but distinct concepts (i.e., confidence and task performance). We conduct a national survey study among a national US sample (N = 999) involving the interpretation of one of the most heavily contested domains—climate change—lending itself for an investigation into how intellectual humility relates to cognitive processes in domains where it is most needed. To gauge participants' ability to distinguish true from false interpretations of evidence (i.e., task performance), we presented them with four summaries of fictitious studies on renewable energy, followed by 2-alternative forced choice questions that assessed their accuracy and confidence in their responses. Results showed that firstly, more intellectually humble citizens performed better at discerning correct from incorrect interpretations of the presented evidence. Secondly, more intellectually humble citizens exhibited a heightened capacity to adjust their confidence levels to the varying accuracy of their evidence interpretations–indicating higher metacognitive ability—and this association was robust to accounting for their superior task performance, and other preregistered covariates. And thirdly, in contrast to intuitive notions, more intellectually humble citizens did not exhibit lower metacognitive bias, the inclination to report lower (vs. higher) confidence in general. By highlighting the role of metacognitive ability in intellectual humility, the current study delivers empirical evidence for the ancient notion that epistemic virtues may involve metacognitive ability.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
智力上的谦逊与元认知能力有关
知识上的谦逊越来越被认为是一种认知美德,有助于促进寻求真相和妥协,并缓解两极分化。然而,目前的证据却与一个惊人的矛盾作斗争:流行的理论解释表明,智力上的谦逊取决于元认知能力——一种反思自己表现的能力,这种能力表现为对自己表现的不同准确性赋予应有的信心。然而,实证研究测试这种元认知能力的智力谦逊的说法已经产生了不一致的结果。在这里,我们引入了一种以信号检测理论为基础的认知科学方法,允许将元认知能力与相关但不同的概念(即信心和任务表现)进行更细致的分离。我们在美国全国样本(N = 999)中进行了一项全国性调查研究,涉及对最具争议的领域之一——气候变化的解释,这有助于调查智力谦逊与最需要的领域的认知过程之间的关系。为了衡量参与者区分对证据的真假解释(即任务表现)的能力,我们向他们展示了关于可再生能源的虚构研究的四个摘要,然后是两个可选的强制选择问题,评估他们回答的准确性和信心。结果表明,首先,智力较低的公民在识别对所提供证据的正确和错误解释方面表现得更好。其次,智力较低的公民表现出更高的能力来调整他们的自信水平,以适应他们对证据解释的不同准确性——这表明更高的元认知能力——这种联系对于他们优越的任务表现和其他预登记的协变量来说是强有力的。第三,与直觉观念相反,智力较低的公民并没有表现出较低的元认知偏见,即总体上倾向于报告较低(相对于较高)的信心。通过强调元认知能力在智力谦逊中的作用,本研究为认知美德可能涉及元认知能力的古老观念提供了经验证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
4.70%
发文量
577
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: Personality and Individual Differences is devoted to the publication of articles (experimental, theoretical, review) which aim to integrate as far as possible the major factors of personality with empirical paradigms from experimental, physiological, animal, clinical, educational, criminological or industrial psychology or to seek an explanation for the causes and major determinants of individual differences in concepts derived from these disciplines. The editors are concerned with both genetic and environmental causes, and they are particularly interested in possible interaction effects.
期刊最新文献
Higher maximization, greater life satisfaction: The mediating role of balanced time perspective The vanishing hours: Future temporal focus and the passage of time in the digital era Individual in online polarization: Development of the online polarized aggression scale (OPAS) Mercenary predators: Individual characteristics of gold diggers Narcissistic perfectionism and its psychological and relational costs: Anger control moderates the relations between narcissistic perfectionism and psychological distress and relationship satisfaction
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1