|
|
|
| An effective metacognitive cue： Temporal regularity of change |
| RONG Cuiliang1,2, XIAN Meijun1, XING Qiang1 |
1. Department of Psychology, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006;
2. Guangdong Vocational Institute of Public Administration （Guangdong Youth Vocational College）, Guangzhou 510800 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Three experiments were conducted to investigate whether the temporal regularity of change in a skilled multistep task could be used as a metacognitive cue. Experiment 1 was a single factor design （time regularity of change： time regularity of increasing change, time regularity of decreasing change, no time regularity）; Experiment 2 added a faster time regularity of increasing change group to further explore whether time regularity of change as a metacognitive cue depends on the recognition of actual errors. Experiment 3 compared the effectiveness of time regularity of change and consistent time regularity as metacognitive cues. The results showed that confidence judgment in time regularity of change was significantly higher than that in no time regularity. Accuracy in time regularity of increasing change was significantly higher than that in time regularity of decreasing change and no time regularity. Faster time regularity of increasing change appeared to separate confidence judgments from accuracy. Time regularity of increasing change had the highest confidence judgment and accuracy, followed by consistent time regularity, and time regularity of decreasing change was the worst. We believe that time regularity of change can be used as a metacognitive cue, and time regularity of increasing change can be used as a metacognitive cue better than consistent time regularity and time regularity of decreasing change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 邱俊杰, 黄希庭, 于晓琳. (2017). 注意控制是否影响节律时间期待?心理科学进展, 25(12), 2145-2156.
[2] Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation.Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 219-235.
[3] Benjamin, A. S. (2005). Response speeding mediates the contributions of cue familiarity and target retrievability to metamnemonic judgments.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(5), 874.
[4] Blake, A. B., & Castel, A. D. (2018). On belief and fluency in the construction of judgments of learning: Assessing and altering the direct effects of belief.Acta Psychologica, 186, 27-38.
[5] Frank, D. J., & Kuhlmann, B. G. (2017). More than just beliefs: Experience and beliefs jointly contribute to volume effects on metacognitive judgments.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43, 680-693.
[6] Hertzog C., Dunlosky J., Robinson A. E., & Kidder D. P. (2003). Encoding fluency is a cue used for judgments about learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(1), 22-34.
[7] Jackson M., Wojtusiak J., D Freitag, Subbotsky E., Nordahl H. M., & Thimm J. C., et al. (2012). Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. Boston, MA: Springer US, 2236-2236.
[8] Johnson, & Marcia, K. (1992). MEM: Mechanisms of recollection.Journal of Cognitive Neuroence, 4(3), 268-280.
[9] Jones, M. R. (1976). Time, our lost dimension: Toward a new theory of perception, attention, and memory.Psychological Review, 83(5), 323-55.
[10] Karlos L., Albuquerque P. B., & Martín-Luengo Beatriz. (2018). Cognitive load eliminates the effect of perceptual information on judgments of learning with sentences.Memory & Cognition, 47(1), 106-116.
[11] Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(4), 349-370.
[12] Koriat, A. (2007). Metacognition and consciousness. Philosophy, 289-325.
[13] Kornell N., Rhodes M. G., Castel A. D., & Tauber S. K. (2011). The ease-of-processing heuristic and the stability bias: Dissociating memory, memory beliefs, and memory judgments.Psychological Science, 22(6), 787-794.
[14] Large, E. W., & Jones, M. R. (1999). The dynamics of attending: How people track time-varying events.Psychological Review, 106, 119-159.
[15] Logan, G. D., & Crump, M. J. C. (2010). Cognitive illusions of authorship reveal hierarchical error detection in skilled typists.Science, 330(6004), 683-686.
[16] Mueller M. L., Dunlosky J., Tauber S. K., & Rhodes M. G. (2014). The font-size effect on judgments of learning: Does it exemplify fluency effects or reflect people’s beliefs about memory?Journal of Memory & Language, 70, 1-12.
[17] Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition?Metacognition, 1-25.
[18] Thompson V. A., Turner J. A. P., Pennycook G., Ball L. J., Brack H., Ophir Y., & Ackerman R. (2013). The role of answer fluency and perceptual fluency as metacognitive cues for initiating analytic thinking.Cognition, 128(2), 237-251.
[19] Schwartze M., Rothermich K., Schmidt-Kassow M., & Kotz S. A. (2011). Temporal regularity effects on pre-attentive and attentive processing of deviance.Biological Psychology, 87(1), 146-151.
[20] Selchenkova T., Jones M. R., & Tillmann B. (2014). The influence of temporal regularities on the implicit learning of pitch structures.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(12), 2360-2380.
[21] Snyder, K. M., & Logan, G. D. (2013). Monitoring-induced disruption in skilled typewriting.Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance, 39(5), 1409-1420.
[22] Stevenson, L. M., & Carlson, R. A. (2018). Consistency, not speed: Temporal regularity as a metacognitive cue.Psychological Research, 84, 88-98.
[23] Undorf, M., Anke Söllner, & Arndt Br?der. (2018). Simultaneous utilization of multiple cues in judgments of learning.Memory & Cognition, 46(4), 507-519.
[24] Wanke, M., & Hansen, J. (2015). Relative processing fluency.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(3), 195-199.
[25] Westerman, D. L. (2008). Relative fluency and illusions of recognition memory.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(6), 1196-1200.
[26] Witherby, A. E., & Tauber, S. K. (2016). The concreteness effect on judgments of learning: Evaluating the contributions of fluency and beliefs.Memory & Cognition, 45(4), 1-12.
[27] Yan V. X., Bjork E. L., & Bjork R. A. (2016). On the difficulty of mending metacognitive illusions: A priori theories, fluency effects, and misattributions of the interleaving benefit.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 918-933. |
|
|
|
