EXPRESS:调查人们对自己面部能力的元认知洞察力。

IF 1.5 3区 心理学 Q4 PHYSIOLOGY Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-16 DOI:10.1177/17470218231218662
Robin Ss Kramer, Jeremy J Tree
{"title":"EXPRESS:调查人们对自己面部能力的元认知洞察力。","authors":"Robin Ss Kramer, Jeremy J Tree","doi":"10.1177/17470218231218662","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Within the domain of face processing, researchers have been interested in quantifying the relationship between objective (i.e., performance on laboratory tests of recognition and matching) and subjective measures of ability (typically, self-report questionnaires). Put simply, do people show high levels of metacognitive insight into their own abilities with faces? Although several studies have suggested that the association between these two types of measures may only be moderate, there remain several important issues that require consideration before this question can be sensibly investigated. First, specificity is needed regarding both objective and subjective measurements because both tend to span a wide range of potentially separable abilities. Second, experimental tasks appear to focus on different contexts to those tapped in self-report questionnaire items. Third, recent issues with statistical approaches and visualisation can result in numerical artefacts and misinterpretations. Finally, the sizes of population-level insights suggested by recent work provide only limited information regarding individuals within these populations, and so researchers aiming to identify people at the extremes of ability must be careful when drawing conclusions. Taken together, we argue that more attention to these issues is needed when attempting to investigate metacognitive insight within this domain.</p>","PeriodicalId":20869,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"1949-1956"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11447997/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Investigating people's metacognitive insight into their own face abilities.\",\"authors\":\"Robin Ss Kramer, Jeremy J Tree\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17470218231218662\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Within the domain of face processing, researchers have been interested in quantifying the relationship between objective (i.e., performance on laboratory tests of recognition and matching) and subjective measures of ability (typically, self-report questionnaires). Put simply, do people show high levels of metacognitive insight into their own abilities with faces? Although several studies have suggested that the association between these two types of measures may only be moderate, there remain several important issues that require consideration before this question can be sensibly investigated. First, specificity is needed regarding both objective and subjective measurements because both tend to span a wide range of potentially separable abilities. Second, experimental tasks appear to focus on different contexts to those tapped in self-report questionnaire items. Third, recent issues with statistical approaches and visualisation can result in numerical artefacts and misinterpretations. Finally, the sizes of population-level insights suggested by recent work provide only limited information regarding individuals within these populations, and so researchers aiming to identify people at the extremes of ability must be careful when drawing conclusions. Taken together, we argue that more attention to these issues is needed when attempting to investigate metacognitive insight within this domain.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20869,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1949-1956\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11447997/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231218662\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/12/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHYSIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231218662","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在人脸处理领域,研究人员一直对量化客观(即在实验室识别和匹配测试中的表现)和主观能力测量(通常是自我报告问卷)之间的关系感兴趣。简而言之,人们对自己的面孔能力是否表现出了高水平的元认知洞察力?虽然几项研究表明,这两种措施之间的联系可能只是适度的,但在对这个问题进行明智的调查之前,仍有几个重要的问题需要考虑。首先,客观和主观测量都需要特异性,因为两者都倾向于跨越广泛的潜在可分离的能力。第二,实验任务似乎与自我报告问卷项目关注的背景不同。第三,统计方法和可视化的最新问题可能导致数字人工制品和误解。最后,最近的研究表明,人口水平的见解的大小只提供了有限的信息,关于这些人口中的个人,因此,研究人员的目标是识别人的极端能力必须小心,当得出结论。综上所述,我们认为,在试图调查这一领域的元认知洞察力时,需要更多地关注这些问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Investigating people's metacognitive insight into their own face abilities.

Within the domain of face processing, researchers have been interested in quantifying the relationship between objective (i.e., performance on laboratory tests of recognition and matching) and subjective measures of ability (typically, self-report questionnaires). Put simply, do people show high levels of metacognitive insight into their own abilities with faces? Although several studies have suggested that the association between these two types of measures may only be moderate, there remain several important issues that require consideration before this question can be sensibly investigated. First, specificity is needed regarding both objective and subjective measurements because both tend to span a wide range of potentially separable abilities. Second, experimental tasks appear to focus on different contexts to those tapped in self-report questionnaire items. Third, recent issues with statistical approaches and visualisation can result in numerical artefacts and misinterpretations. Finally, the sizes of population-level insights suggested by recent work provide only limited information regarding individuals within these populations, and so researchers aiming to identify people at the extremes of ability must be careful when drawing conclusions. Taken together, we argue that more attention to these issues is needed when attempting to investigate metacognitive insight within this domain.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
178
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Promoting the interests of scientific psychology and its researchers, QJEP, the journal of the Experimental Psychology Society, is a leading journal with a long-standing tradition of publishing cutting-edge research. Several articles have become classic papers in the fields of attention, perception, learning, memory, language, and reasoning. The journal publishes original articles on any topic within the field of experimental psychology (including comparative research). These include substantial experimental reports, review papers, rapid communications (reporting novel techniques or ground breaking results), comments (on articles previously published in QJEP or on issues of general interest to experimental psychologists), and book reviews. Experimental results are welcomed from all relevant techniques, including behavioural testing, brain imaging and computational modelling. QJEP offers a competitive publication time-scale. Accepted Rapid Communications have priority in the publication cycle and usually appear in print within three months. We aim to publish all accepted (but uncorrected) articles online within seven days. Our Latest Articles page offers immediate publication of articles upon reaching their final form. The journal offers an open access option called Open Select, enabling authors to meet funder requirements to make their article free to read online for all in perpetuity. Authors also benefit from a broad and diverse subscription base that delivers the journal contents to a world-wide readership. Together these features ensure that the journal offers authors the opportunity to raise the visibility of their work to a global audience.
期刊最新文献
Reasoning in social versus non-social domains and its relation to autistic traits. When is a causal illusion an illusion? Separating discriminability and bias in human contingency judgements. Advancing an account of hierarchical dual-task control: A focused review on abstract higher-level task representations in dual-task situations. The effect of chronic academic stress on attentional bias towards value-associated stimuli. Is the precedence of social re-orienting only inherent to the initiators?
×
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:481959085
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