Survey measures of metacognitive monitoring are often false.

IF 3.9 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Behavior Research Methods Pub Date : 2025-02-18 DOI:10.3758/s13428-025-02621-6
Kit S Double
{"title":"Survey measures of metacognitive monitoring are often false.","authors":"Kit S Double","doi":"10.3758/s13428-025-02621-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Metacognitive monitoring is an extremely important ability that predicts a wide range of outcomes. However, do people have insight into their own metacognitive monitoring capacity? This study measured participants' perceived metacognitive monitoring abilities using a novel psychometrically validated questionnaire (Study 1) and then examined how well survey responses aligned with online measures of metacognitive monitoring (resolution, discrimination, sensitivity, efficiency) taken from confidence ratings participants made while performing a perceptual decision-making task and Raven's Progressive Matrices (Study 2). We found a negative correlation between the questionnaire responses and many of the online measures of metacognitive monitoring - those who reported being better at metacognitive monitoring, in fact tended to be worse according to the online metacognitive ratings. This occurred because, in general, high self-perceptions of monitoring ability were, in fact, related to higher confidence and lower cognitive performance. These findings suggest that we may have inaccurate insights into our own metacognitive monitoring capacity and questionnaire-based measures of metacognitive abilities may be problematic as they may represent unrealistic self-perceptions.</p>","PeriodicalId":8717,"journal":{"name":"Behavior Research Methods","volume":"57 3","pages":"97"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11836092/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavior Research Methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-025-02621-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Metacognitive monitoring is an extremely important ability that predicts a wide range of outcomes. However, do people have insight into their own metacognitive monitoring capacity? This study measured participants' perceived metacognitive monitoring abilities using a novel psychometrically validated questionnaire (Study 1) and then examined how well survey responses aligned with online measures of metacognitive monitoring (resolution, discrimination, sensitivity, efficiency) taken from confidence ratings participants made while performing a perceptual decision-making task and Raven's Progressive Matrices (Study 2). We found a negative correlation between the questionnaire responses and many of the online measures of metacognitive monitoring - those who reported being better at metacognitive monitoring, in fact tended to be worse according to the online metacognitive ratings. This occurred because, in general, high self-perceptions of monitoring ability were, in fact, related to higher confidence and lower cognitive performance. These findings suggest that we may have inaccurate insights into our own metacognitive monitoring capacity and questionnaire-based measures of metacognitive abilities may be problematic as they may represent unrealistic self-perceptions.

Abstract Image

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
元认知监测的调查测量常常是错误的。
元认知监测是一种极其重要的能力,可以预测广泛的结果。然而,人们是否了解自己的元认知监控能力?本研究使用一种新颖的心理测量学验证的问卷(研究1)测量了参与者感知的元认知监测能力,然后检查了调查结果与元认知监测的在线测量(分辨力、分辨力、敏感性、效率)从参与者在执行感知决策任务和Raven's Progressive Matrices时所做的信心评级中得出(研究2)。我们发现问卷回答与许多元认知监测的在线测量之间存在负相关——根据在线元认知评级,那些报告在元认知监测方面表现较好的人实际上往往表现较差。这是因为,通常情况下,对监控能力的高度自我认知实际上与更高的自信和更低的认知表现有关。这些发现表明,我们可能对自己的元认知监测能力有不准确的认识,而基于问卷的元认知能力测量可能存在问题,因为它们可能代表不切实际的自我认知。
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
10.30
自引率
9.30%
发文量
266
期刊介绍: Behavior Research Methods publishes articles concerned with the methods, techniques, and instrumentation of research in experimental psychology. The journal focuses particularly on the use of computer technology in psychological research. An annual special issue is devoted to this field.
期刊最新文献
Moderation with a latent class variable: A tutorial and example. Validating dynamic time warping as a measure of gesture form similarity. Systematic classification differences across eye movement detection algorithms. Delivering tactile stimuli via mobile browsers: A method for remote multisensory research. Penalized eigenvalue block averaging: Extension to nested model comparison and Monte Carlo evaluations.
×
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