Confidence ratings improve short-term accuracy for high prospective-confidence older adults but impair it for low prospective-confidence adults¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The effect of eliciting confidence ratings on Mean Accuracy interacted with prospective confidence: high-confidence participants performed better with CR, low-confidence participants worse. → Double 2018 q3 i? The CR group performed significantly worse than controls among participants with prospective confidence below 62.09%. → Double 2018 (2)

Evidence¶

Double 2018¶

Double, K. S., & Birney, D. P. (2018). Reactivity to confidence ratings in older individuals performing the latin square task. Metacognition and Learning, 13, 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-018-9186-5

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Regression on Mean Accuracy (R2 = .35, F(3,85) = 15.56, p < .001) in the randomized CR vs No-CR experiment found a significant group × prospective confidence interaction, b = 29.82, p = .018, with the crossover shown in Fig. 3.

"Notably, the group × prospective confidence interaction was also significant,b =2 9 . 8 2 ,t =2 . 4 1 ,p = .018. As shown in Fig. 3, participants high in prospective confidence performed better when confidence ratings were elicited, whereas participants low in prospective confidence performed worse when asked to provide confidence ratings."

Double 2018 (2)¶

Double, K. S., & Birney, D. P. (2018). Reactivity to confidence ratings in older individuals performing the latin square task. Metacognition and Learning, 13, 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-018-9186-5

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Johnson-Neyman probing of the Mean Accuracy moderation showed the CR-versus-control difference was significant only for prospective confidence below 62.09%, where "participants in the CR group performed worse than controls".

"The results indicated that there was a significant group difference between the CR and No-CR group for participants with prospective confidence below 62.09, such that participants in the CR group performed worse than controls within this region."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Eliciting confidence ratings leads to poorer metacognitive monitoring in older adults — related
• Confidence ratings shift time allocation on a timed task in opposite directions for high- versus low-confidence older adults — related
• Eliciting confidence ratings produces no significant difference in overall accuracy on a timed reasoning task in older adults — related
• Think-aloud reactivity effects on reading outcomes are inconclusive, moderated by report type, task language, and participant age — related